Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HARTLEPOOL PORT AND HARBOUR BILL

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [26th July], and agreed to.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.

Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER
(NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

PETITION (SOUTHAMPTON HOUSING ESTATE)

Dr. King: I desire to exercise the most ancient right of British citizens and of hon. Members of this House and present a Petition on behalf of more than 300 fathers and mothers in the housing estate of Millbrook, Southampton. Southampton Education Committee has not only the ordinary bulge in child population to deal with, but damage caused by the blitz, and its schools are overcrowded. On the Mill-brook housing estate this autumn already schools built there will be overcrowded and junior children will have to be moved from the present overcrowded junior school to other parts of the town. Infants will have to be sent long distances to receive education at school, having to cross dangerous roads, because there is no infant school on the estate. The petitioners call attention to these hardships

and ask that the Minister increase the building allocation for schools in Southampton, major and minor, at the earliest possible moment.
The Petition ends,
And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Tower of London (Crown Jewels)

Commander Donaldson: asked the Minister of Works the average numbers of those who view the Crown Jewels on weekdays and on Sundays during the tourist season.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): During the tourist season the Crown Jewels are viewed by an average of about 2,900 people on a weekday and 1,500 people on a Sunday.

Commander Donaldson: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of how many people are turned away on weekdays and on Sundays?

Sir D. Eccles: Not accurately, but it is a great many.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are Crown Jewels in Edinburgh Castle about which there is no difficulty in viewing?

Commander Donaldson: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the disappointment felt by overseas visitors, especially those from the Commonwealth countries, when they are unable to see the Crown Jewels owing to the present inadequate arrangements in the Tower of London; if he will remove the Crown Jewels to a new jewel room, possibly in the White Tower; what would be the estimated cost of such a move; and what would be the estimated increased revenue.

Sir D. Eccles: Visitors are sometimes disappointed by not being able to see the Crown Jewels. However, the jewels cannot be housed elsewhere in the Tower because of problems of display, security, and public access. The only satisfactory solution would be a new building. This


would cost about £100,000. It is difficult to estimate the increased revenue which might be obtained if a new building were erected.

Commander Donaldson: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the goodwill engendered by Her Majesty's citizens who come from all over the world to see these jewels would justify the expenditure? Does he not think that if a new building were constructed it would not be long before it would be a profitable business? The important point is that people are very distressed at not being able to see the Crown Jewels when they come here.

Sir D. Eccles: I hope it will be possible one day to build a new Jewel House.

Mr. Ede: Is not the right hon. Gentleman the warden of all the ancient monuments and the Tower one of the greatest of them?

Sir D. Eccles: I quite agree, but there is no suitable place in the Tower where the Crown Jewels can be kept in security unless we build a new Jewel House.

Royal Parks (Revised Regulations)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take to bring the Regulations governing the Royal Parks more in keeping with modern standards.

Sir D. Eccles: Revised Regulations for St. James's and the Green Parks have been laid before the House today. My aim has been to reduce the number of prohibitions and to make the Regulations as clear and simple as possible. I shall now revise the Regulations for the other Royal Parks and will lay these before the House as drafting is completed.

Mr. Dodds: For a second time, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way he has tackled these antiquated Regulations. Does he not appreciate that if he continues on his successful way he may yet reach the high standard of Labour Ministers in previous Governments?

Dover House, Whitehall

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Works whether he is now in a position to name a date by which

Dover House, Whitehall, will be ready for re-occupation by the Scottish Office.

Sir D. Eccles: I hope in the autumn of 1955.

Bricks

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works how many increases in the price of bricks there have been in the past three years; the amounts of these increases; and how far all types of building bricks have been similarly affected.

Sir D. Eccles: Hundreds of firms produce bricks and many varieties of bricks are produced. Without lengthy inquiries the information desired by the hon. Member could not be obtained.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister not aware that some bricks are more popular for mass building than others? I was not really concerned with the specialist bricks so much as those in popular demand, say Fletton bricks. Could the right hon. Gentleman not obtain some information about those?

Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Member will ask me about a particular brick, I will try to find out the price ranges.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works the present production of building bricks; and how it compares with production in 1938.

Sir D. Eccles: The monthly average production of bricks this year is 603 million. No strictly comparable figure is available for 1938.

Mr. Jeger: The Monthly Digest of Statistics gave the monthly average for 1938 as 650 million. It was the accuracy of that which I was inclined to query. Is it only a tentative figure of 650?

Sir D. Eccles: That is my own view —that the figure for 1938 is not based on adequate examination.

Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the comparable figure for 1951 was?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir; 507 million.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works how many different varieties of building bricks are in current use; and the number of each kind being produced.

Sir D. Eccles: I believe there are some 2,000 varieties. Of these, Flettons account for one-third of the nation's output of about 7,500 million bricks. The hon. Member will not expect me to give figures for the other 1,999 varieties.

Cement Supplies, Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Works whether he, is aware of the continued shortage of cement for urgent building requirements in Newport, particularly for certain contracts and contractors of whom he has been informed; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware that complaints of shortage of cement are still being made in Newport. The cement industry is arranging to increase deliveries in South Wales and Monmouthshire.

Mr. Freeman: Is the Minister aware that this matter has already been raised five or six times in the House this year and that every time we have been told that improvements would be made, and that meanwhile the situation steadily deteriorates? Could the Minister take some more effective action to ensure 10 or 12 contractors getting on with the work of building houses and institutions in Newport and other parts of South Wales?

Sir D. Eccles: I very much hope that these increased deliveries will be sufficient. For example, in the first three weeks of July 38,800 tons were delivered against 34,000 tons in the same period last year. If deliveries go on like that I think the shortage will be cured.

Palace of Westminster (Pictures)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Works if, in view of the fact that this is the 50th anniversary of theEntente Cordiale, he will consider removing from the Palace of Westminster unsightly pictures depicting battles between the English and the French.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir; both the British and the French can be proud of their military history and, since France was our enemy and is now our friend, there is all the more reason to rejoice at the friendship.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that it is a peculiar way of showing friendship that on the last occasion the

French President was here he addressed a meeting in the Royal Gallery where there was a huge picture of Trafalgar on one side and another of Waterloo on the other? Does the Minister not agree that these pictures are awful monstrosities and should be removed to the nearest municipal slaughterhouse?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in any case the French claim Waterloo as a victory?

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that there might well be some Scots depicted in these pictures?

Mr. Ede: Would the Minister consider having some French pictures depicting the same battles and indicating that a different result was achieved than that usually recorded in history books?

Sir D. Eccles: My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is about to ask for more pictures, and if we can get some of these French pictures we will certainly look at them. In reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I would point out that I used the word "British" whereas the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) used the word "English."

Mr. K. Robinson: Leaving aside historical considerations, is the Minister aware that these are not the only unsightly pictures in the Palace of Westminster and that, generally speaking, the pictures in this building are a disgrace to a great national assembly? Will he try to do something about that?

Sir D. Eccles: I have set up a committee to look into this matter. I am in sympathy with what the hon. Member has just said.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Estimates

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, why only £578,000 is included in the Civil Estimates for the Directorate of Scientific and Industrial Research when a figure of £900,000 was officially forecast by a spokesman of his Ministry on 8th December, 1953.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): This is a misunderstanding here. In my reply of 8th December 1953, I stated that the annual net Vote would be increased by £900,000 over a period of five years. I have every reason to suppose this will happen. In the present financial year the published estimate for the Department is £6¼ million, an increase of £578,000 over last year of which £230,000 is part of the projected expansion.

Mr. Skeffington: Is not a great deal of the figure to which I have referred in the Question already being spent on European nuclear physics and, therefore, does not come within this particular expenditure forecast at all, which was supposed to be for research projects in this country? Is not the sum totally inadequate?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The figure of £578,000 of course includes certain grants-in-aid such as the hon. Member refers to, but there has, in fact been a substantial net increase quite apart from these.

Staff (Recruitment)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, how far the proposals announced in 1946 for the recruitment of additional persons to the Directorate of Scientific and Industrial Research have exceeded or fallen short of that objective.

Mr. Bevins: The 1946 plans for the eventual expansion of the staff of the Department contemplated an increase in non-industrial staff to about 4,000. The total on 1st July, 1954, was 3,108. It is intended to increase this staff to 3,900 by 1959.

Mr. Skeffington: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what active steps he is taking to get personnel now so that the Department can get on with this important work?

Mr. Bevins: The non-industrial staff of the D.S.I.R. is increasing all the time. The number of non-industrial staff employed in 1949 was 2,500; today it is 3,100.

Mr. Hoy: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is likely to be any slowing down in the provision of the laboratories as a result of Treasury interference?

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.

Sulphate-reducing Bacteria

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how many staff are employed, and what is the expenditure of the Directorate of Scientific and Industrial Research, on work on the effects of sulphate-reducing bacteria.

Mr. Bevins: About 12 people are working at the Chemical Research Laboratory on the effects of sulphate-reducing bacteria. The total cost of the research is about £13,000 a year.

Programme and Activities

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what activities of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are included in the 5 per cent. of its programme for which no resources are to be made available between now and 1959.

Mr. Bevins: On 8th December last, I stated that by 1959 the total resources of the Department should be adequate to cover some 95 per cent. of the activities projected in the plans covered by its 1947–48 Report. This statement did not imply that any specific activity would be omitted but only that the general level of activity would be about 5 per cent. less.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that does not alter the position at all, that what he has said simply confirms that some part of the programme of the Department which was considered to be essential will not be done, whether it be 5 per cent. of one section or 5 per cent. of another? What my Question sought to elicit is what is it that was projected which will not be done? Surely the hon. Member can tell me that.

Mr. Bevins: Yes, but the 5 per cent. is not one project or another; it is spread over the general activities of the D.S.I.R. I might add that the gross expenditure on the D.S.I.R. has increased from £5–8 million in 1952 to £7 million in the current year.

Mr. Mikardo: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is no increase in real expenditure? Why does he evade a simple question which seeks to find out what it is that is being dropped?

Mr. Bevins: I have already said that no specific project has been dropped. As to the former part of the Question, I have already given an answer and do not wish to repeat myself.

Mr.J. Hudson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the loss in efficiency that is indicated by the decrease in expenditure might have been made up if money had not been spent so readily on Lord Vansittart's house, of which we have had no notice?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a little apprehension, especially in East Kilbride, about the slowing down of this work, and is he aware that there is not any real economy in holding up scientific and industrial research, because our future depends on our efficiency?

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Since the planned expansion was agreed by the Treasury some months ago, progress has been made and will continue to be made.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is now in a position to state what are the non-permanent and additional functions which were envisaged for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in his statement of 8th December last.

Mr. Bevins: My statement referred to provision for certain services which are not a permanent part of the Department's activities. The only existing service of any size in this category is the making of grants to universities for nuclear physics research. My reference to additional liabilities was to cover any new responsibilities which the Department might have to assume. Cases in point relate to the grant-in-aid for the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, for which additional funds are provided in the Department's current Estimates, and activities in the field of industrial productivity financed under Conditional Aid.

Mr. Mikardo: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, might I

ask him whether these additional and non-permanent activities are not being financed to some extent at the cost of the regular functions of the Department, since, although there is a separate allocation of money, that allocation is used to pretend that there is an increase in the budget of the Department whereas, in fact, there is not?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir, that is not so. In fact, the money for the financing of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research was financed initially by a Supplementary Estimate which was put before the House. The research on industrial productivity is financed by Conditional Aid, and the grants for the universities are an integral part of the financial backing of D.S.I.R.

Corrosion (Buried Pipes)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how many persons are engaged, and what sum is being spent in the current year, on Government-sponsored research into the problems of the corrosion of buried pipes.

Mr. Bevins: About six people are employed. The annual cost of the research is about £6,000.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the Minister aware that the cost of this underground pipe corrosion in the country has been estimated at about £5 million a year? Is he further aware that this work is progressing very slowly because there is not sufficient staff, and is he satisfied with this situation?

Mr. Bevins: Of course, this work at the Chemical Research Laboratory on the corrosion of pipes is part of a very large programme of research into corrosion generally. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says it is very important economically, and it is not a matter which will be lost sight of.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Factory Inspectors (Recruitment)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many graduates in engineering, chemistry and metallurgy, respectively, or their technical equivalents,


accepted appointments as factory inspectors in response to his advertisements for such applicants during the latter end of 1953.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service(Mr. Harold Watkinson): One graduate in chemistry. No other candidates were qualified for appointment.

Dr. Stross: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that this is not a very satisfactory state of affairs and, in view of the response made, that it would be better if the scales of remuneration for factory inspectors were as high as those in other Departments, such as Education and the Treasury? Lastly, will he say if there is any likelihood of improvement now?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think it would be proper for me to express an opinion other than to say that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the pay scale is under consideration at the present moment.

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour to make a statement on the general employment position in Wales, compared with a convenient date 12 months ago and in 1951.

Mr. Watkinson: In June, 1954, the number of persons unemployed in Wales was 19,600, which was the lowest June figure in any year since the war. It was 6,000 fewer than in June, 1953, and 1,000 less than in June, 1951. Statistics to show the number of persons in employment in Wales at mid-1954 are not yet available. Between June, 1951, and June, 1953, the total in employment rose by 12,000, and all the indications are that employment has continued to expand this year.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the maintenance of such a high level of employment in Wales is giving satisfaction to people in all walks of life, and will he pay some particular attention to one or two spots in the North which, I believe, have particular difficulties?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes. I think it is only fair to say that there are still difficulties ahead and that the level of employment in Wales is not as high as the

level in the best areas in England. Nevertheless, progress has been remarkable, and I think we shall maintain it.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman say what are the prospects for the better employment of shipbuilding repair workers and wet dockers in Wales?

Mr. Watkinson: Not without notice.

United Kingdom

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour how the present employment position in the United Kingdom as a whole compares with that of a year ago; and how far he anticipates that full employment can be maintained during the rest of this year.

Mr. Watkinson: The number of persons in employment in Great Britain at the end of May was the highest ever recorded in peace-time and over 200,000 more than at the end of May last year. Unemployment in June was 58,000 less than a year ago.
There are at present no indications that employment is likely to fall below a satisfactory level in the second half of this year.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread satisfaction that under a Conservative Government the principles of full employment are being so magnificently upheld, and will he do his utmost to ensure that this happy state of affairs continues?

Mr. T. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent this wonderful full employment situation is due to the large number of factories built during the period when the Labour Party were in office?

Mr. Watkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the right answer as to why we have achieved full employment, it is because the Government have provided the right kind of economic background which enables people in this country to be competitive and productive in the export market.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that for over 10 years between the wars when the Conservative Party was in power there were over two million unemployed and South Wales was a distressed area?

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in fact, he has not answered the Question fully, because it refers to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland? Will he bear in mind the high level of unemployment there?

Mr. Watkinson: I think my hon. and gallant Friend would be the first to object if my right hon. and learned Friend were to undertake the direct responsibility for this problem, which properly belongs to the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Callaghan: Are we to take it that the Government take credit for full employment but refuse to take responsibility for unemployment?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has not kept himself up to date, or he would have known that last week my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had a meeting on this very matter of Northern Ireland unemployment with their corresponding colleagues from the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Isaacs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a good deal of the improvement is due to the fact that the trade unions have encouraged their members to develop human relations in industry?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly, and, if this is my last word at this Box on this subject, I would say that this is surely something about which the whole country—[Laughter.] I know the Opposition find great amusement in the fact that this country is more prosperous than it has been at any time since the war.

Human Relations in Industry (Exhibition)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour what efforts have been made through the National Joint Advisory Council with the object of improving human relations in industry.

Mr. Watkinson: The National Joint Advisory Council appointed a special sub-committee to consider what measures should be taken to improve human relations in industry which made a report to the Council earlier this year. A leaflet giving the conclusions and recommendations of that report was published on Thursday last. In addition, a small mobile exhibition giving examples of

good industrial practice in works information has been produced by my Department. This is now on view at the end of the Ministers' corridor on the Ministerial floor and will later be made available to the British Productivity Council, who hope to make use of it at exhibitions and conferences organised by their local productivity committees.

Mr. Remnant: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and ask him if he will give an assurance that every encouragement will continue to be given by his Department to this vitally important subject of the improvement of relations?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. This is part of the job mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) of improving human relations in industry as a proper basis for permanent prosperity.

Older Persons

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Labour how many of his staff throughout the country during the year 1953 were compulsorily retired on reaching the age of 60 years; how many between the ages of 61 and 65 years; and how many of his present staff are over the age of 65 years.

Mr. Watkinson: Seventy-three were retired on reaching 60; of these 70 were retired because they were not fully fit and efficient and three because of redundancy. Three hundred and six were retired between the ages of 61 and 65; of these 57 were not fully fit and efficient, and 249 were redundant owing to the contraction of the Department's work. Six hundred and six members of the present staff are over the age of 65.

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been issued to his staff in connection with impressing on employers in industry the desirability of offering to continue in employment fit men and women of pensionable age.

Mr. Watkinson: The staff of the Ministry have standing instructions to encourage employers to follow the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee that all men and women, irrespective of age, who can give effective service, and for whom work is available, should be allowed to continue at work if


they so wish. The local employment committees, which represent employers, workpeople, and other local interests, are also giving valuable help in promoting the continued employment of older men and women.

Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the advice he is giving to employers is in fact being followed in his own Department, because only recently I heard of an apparently perfectly fit employee who was a member of his staff, aged only 62, who was going round to employers encouraging them to keep on their staff after pensionable age and who, in the next week, was found to be redundant himself?

Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give me details,I will look into that matter. No doubt it was covered by the figures I gave in my previous answer.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Do not the figures show a considerable improvement on those of two years ago when managers of labour exchanges were being retired almost automatically at the age of 60?

Dr. King: How can the Minister consistently encourage people to stay on in industry when in his own Department, not only in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), he is preventing men who are able and willing to stay on from carrying on after the age of 61 or 62?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not correct. My committee on older workers recommended that the test for employment must be that the job is there and that the man has the capacity to do it. That is the test that we apply in my Department.

Barry

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour how many people in the Borough of Barry had been unemployed for periods of more than six months at the latest convenient date; and how this figure compares with the figure for a year previously.

Mr. Watkinson: Ninety-eight at 14th June, 1954, compared with 96 at 15th June, 1953.

Mr. Gower: May I thank my hon. Friend for the remarkable figures he has been able to give?

Redundant Workers, Stirling

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the male and female workers, respectively, who were rendered redundant by the recent closing of the British-American Tobacco Company's factory in Stirling have now been placed in employment; and how many are still without employment.

Mr. Watkinson: Forty-one men and 127 women have now been placed or have found work. Twenty-four women are still registered for employment, and no men.

Mr. MacPherson: Will the hon. Gentleman continue in his efforts to find work for these women and also take note of the fact that the general situation illustrates the difficulty of finding work for women in this neighbourhood?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree.

New Towns (Registrations)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour if his regulations permit managers of all employment exchanges to arrange with employment exchanges or employers in new towns for the employment of those who apply locally for employment in the new towns; and whether the managers of employment exchanges in the new towns are permitted to register for employment and secure employment for those not living in the new towns who nevertheless apply at those new towns for employment.

Mr. Watkinson: Anyone may register at any employment exchange for employment in any part of the country. Persons registering for employment in the new towns, however, are considered in the following order when vacancies arise:

(1) Suitable local unemployed persons.
(2) Suitable persons who are on the housing list of one of the exporting authorities in Greater London, who have indicated their desire to move to a new or expanded town, and who are nominated by the authority.
(3) Other suitable persons who have applied.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that a certain amount of confusion exists


in the minds of those who would like to work in the new towns? Can something be done to clarify this matter and also to publicise it?

Mr. Watkinson: I hope the hon. Member's Question and my answer will do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Deferments

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Labour in what trades or occupations continuing deferments can be obtained from National Service; and what are the general reasons on which decisions are made.

Mr. Watkinson: Underground coal-miners, merchant seamen and seagoing fishermen have their call-up deferred for so long as they remain in those occupations. Agricultural workers born before 1933, whose call-up was deferred under the old arrangements in force until 1951 remain indefinitely deferred so long as they stay in agriculture. The need to maintain the labour force of coalmining and the need of keeping merchant seamen at sea are self-evident. There are also a few hundred highly qualified scientists indefinitely deferred for certain special defence projects.

Mr. Keenan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me in what category racing motorists are deferred or exempted?

Mr. Watkinson: As far as I know, racing motorists are not in any special category. They are treated just like anybody else.

Mr. Keenan: Why, then, is the gentleman so often referred to still allowed to be exempt when we cannot get deferment for men with distressed families?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not know why we should refer to personal cases, but it is only fair to say that the man referred to has carried out the proper drill. He has been examined by my Department and at the moment is not fit enough to be called up.

Emigrants (Commonwealth Countries)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the system of allotting assisted passages

to Australia to persons liable for National Service.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. The general arrangement with the Australian authorities until recently was that an assisted passage would not be granted to young men after the age at which they were due to be called up. This has now been modified to allow an assisted passage to be granted where the young man is a junior member of a family which is about to emigrate. Similarly, in the case of emigration to other Commonwealth countries, for which there is no assisted passage scheme, junior members of a family will not be prevented from emigrating with the family.

Mr. Snow: As far as I could hear the answer, it sounded to me to be the characteristic commonsense which we would expect from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but which is rather exceptional from his side of the House. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to have his answer publicised as far as possible, as it may reduce a great deal of the distress felt by some families?

Sir W. Monckton: That was the reason why I answered the Question today before the House rose—so that it will be reported.

Mr. Gibson: Does what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about assisted passages apply also to those emigrants who pay their own fares?

Sir W. Monckton: As I pointed out in regard to Commonwealth countries other than Australia, the concession I was making would apply, and it would apply to Australia too.

Overseas Residence

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken to ensure that men who have been abroad and are liable to call-up for National Service on return to this country are, in fact, called-up.

Mr. Watkinson: We keep a record of all such men and when any of them return to this country action is taken to test their liability for call-up.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister bear in mind that as long as National Service is an unfortunate necessity it is of fundamental importance to see that there is no sense of grievance between one section of the community and another?

Mr. Watkinson: I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised this question. I assure him that we try to apply that principle.

Mr. Shinwell: The Minister gave a previous answer which bears on this Question and the answer to it—an answer referring to a racing motorist whom, he said, had been examined but had been found to be unfit. Is he aware that many men are called up although they are not as fit as they would like to be and that they are not included in Category I or Category II but are included in Category III? What is the position of this man?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has not the complete facts, and I will now give them to him. This man has had a proper examination under the Act. At that time he was found not to be fit and his examination was deferred for three months. At the end of the three months he will be further examined and, if he is found fit, he will be called up.

Mr. Isaacs: Is the Minister satisfied that some of these people who go abroad do not stop abroad until just after the age of 26 and then come back having avoided National Service altogether? Should not some attention be given to catching those people who go abroad in order to dodge Service?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. My right hon. and learned Friend indicated some time ago that we were considering this matter.

COST OF LIVING

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the concern caused by the fact that the cost-of-living index has again risen in June; and what action is being taken to reduce the cost of living.

Mr. Watkinson: The Retail Prices Index in June stood at the same level as in April, after a temporary reduction of

one point in May. The index has been relatively stable for over a year and is only one point above the figure for June, 1953. The Government will continue to pursue the policies which have been responsible for this satisfactory change from the years of rapidly rising prices.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the statement that in June the index was two points higher than it was on 1st January, 1954, four points higher than on 1st January, 1953, and 13 points higher than it was on 1st November, 1951, when the Government took office? As a Minister in a Government that won power on the promise to reduce the cost of living, how can he be so complacent?

Mr. Watkinson: I also agree that from June, 1947, to June, 1951, the index rose by 25 points.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that at a time when throughout Europe for the last three years prices have been stationary or falling, in this country prices have gone up so much?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not quite correct. Once the economy had won clear of the backlash of the previous Government's administration prices remained stable, as accurately measured by the index.

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mental Patients (After-Care)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the numbers and percentages of mental patients released from mental homes under his control in Scotland during each of the last five years; what provision was made for their after-care; and what records were kept of their lives after their release and with what results.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The total number of patients discharged from mental hospitals in Scotland rose from 4,443 in 1949 to 5,888 in 1953. With permission, I will circulate details and percentages in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The care of patients


discharged to guardianship in private houses remains the responsibility of hospital authorities. In other cases, where a discharged patient's own doctor needs help in providing any necessary aftercare, this can be obtained by attendance at an out-patient clinic, by seeking the co-operation of a psychiatric social worker, or by enlisting the aid of a voluntary organisation.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that such after-care treat-

PATIENTS DISCHARGED FROM MENTAL HOSPITALS IN SCOTLAND


Year
Total Discharges
Certified Patients
Voluntary Patients


Number
Percentages
Number
Percentages


(1)
(2)
(3)

(2)
(3)


1949
…
…
…
4 443
1,313 (40)
8
48
3,130
114
85


1950
…
…
…
4,744
1,324 (33)
8
50
3,420
120
86


1951
…
…
…
4,929
1,280 (30)
8
50
3,649
115
82


1952
…
…
…
5,532
1,270 (21)
8
50
4,262
119
84


1953
…
…
…
5,888
1,271 (23)
8
49
4,617
117
86


Notes:


(1) The figures in brackets are the numbers of patients (included in the total) placed under guardianship.


(2) Number of patients discharged expressed as a percentage of the number of patients in the appropriate class in hospital at the end of the year.


(3) Number of patients discharged expressed as a percentage of the number of patients in the appropriate class admitted during the year.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes there are in Scotland under his control for the after-care of mental patients; where they are situate; what is their accommodation; how many patients they accommodate; and how many they now contain and of what type.

Mr. J. Stuart: If the hon. and learned Member has in mind a form of care distinct from that afforded by a hospital or under guardianship, the provision of accommodation for the purpose, so far as appropriate to public authorities, would rest with local authorities rather than with me. There are at present no such homes in Scotland, nor has any provision been made by voluntary organisations.

Mr. Hughes: As the Secretary of State's reply seems to be rather vague, may I ask whether he realises the therapeutic value of such after-care work? Will he give some attention to it, in the interests of the patients and of the community at large.

ment is often essential to complete the cure as well as being of great scientific importance, if records are kept? Are records kept?

Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that I have no comprehensive information to give in reply to the last part of the question.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that no such records are kept?

Following is the information:

Mr. Stuart: I agree about its importance. I said that it was a matter for the local authorities or voluntary effort.

Prisons (Accommodation)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of inmates of Scottish prisons who are at present being detained in cells containing more than two persons.

Mr. J. Stuart: None, Sir.

Oil Depot, Dundee (Planning Decision)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now state his decision on the report of Sir John Handford regarding planning permission for an oil depot in Dundee.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have sustained this appeal and this will allow the development to proceed. My decision was intimated to the parties on 21st July.

Isle of Arran (Tourist Trade)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking in consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board to popularise the island of Arran as a tourist centre.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Scottish Tourist Board have been active in furthering the interests of Arran in common with other tourist centres. In co-operation with the Island of Arran Publicity Association, they have promoted the Arran Welcome Week. The Board give worldwide distribution to the Association's publicity material and include this and other material in their own publications.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if only he used his imagination and arranged for some experimental helicopter flights from Edinburgh to the island of Arran he would get some wonderful publicity? If it is a question of cost, is he aware that I have had a helicopter placed at my disposal for the month of September and that if he would like to use it for this purpose I will see that it is passed on to him?

Mr. Stuart: I have been to Arran by boat, but I must thank the hon. Member for his offer.

Mr. Manuel: We do not want helicopters in Arran.

Welfare Foods, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Dundee Corporation regarding the transfer to local authorities of the Welfare Foods Scheme; and what reply he has made.

Mr. J. Stuart: The corporation drew attention to the cost that would fall on local authorities as a result of this transfer, and to the shortness of the period allowed for completing the necessary arrangements. I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department taking any steps in the first place to reduce the cost to the local authority and to the ratepayers, and in the second place to give the local authority more time to make adequate arrangements for this important service?

Mr. Stuart: No further time is necessary because all the authorities have now made their returns. Only three authorities in the whole of Scotland, not including Dundee, were a little late.

Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs (Report)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. I have received the Report, which is being presented to Parliament today. The recommendations contained in the Report will have immediate consideration. I have conveyed to Lord Balfour and the members of the Commission the warm thanks of Her Majesty's Government for the thorough and expeditious way in which they have carried out their inquiry.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman also publish the evidence placed before the Royal Commission on which this Report was based, as clearly that will be of extreme interest to those of us who want to study the Report in greater detail.

Mr. Stuart: I think that a great deal of the evidence has already been published. It was published while the Commission was sitting in open session, but I will look into that point.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the evidence be made available to Members of Parliament in conjunction with the Report?

Mr. Stuart: I will do my best in the matter. I thought that the evidence had already been published.

Mr. Rankin: What opportunity will be given to the House to debate the Report?

Mr. Stuart: I hope that an opportunity will be found a little later, but for the moment I think it would perhaps be better to read the Report.

Early Potatoes

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for encouraging the production of new potatoes in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: I presume that the Question refers to early potatoes. The estimated acreage of first early potatoes planted in Scotland for this year's crop is the highest since 1950. It would seem that present market conditions are encouraging.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that farmers who grow early potatoes think he has been rather late in his action in dealing with the big importation of Cyprus potatoes? Is he aware that it is not encouraging farmers to grow potatoes if the potatoes are then left to rot in the soil? What answers are we to give to indignant farmers about his action?

Mr. Stuart: Only about 8 per cent. of the total supply of early potatoes is imported, so that it is not a very large figure.

Mr. Manuel: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this question of early seed potatoes in Scotland is of very great importance? What steps is he taking to see that we do not lose further orders for seed potatoes in Scotland, because we certainly are losing orders for seed potatoes which we used to have.

Mr. Stuart: I took it that the Question did not refer to seed potatoes.

Civil Defence

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to make a statement on the position of Civil Defence in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave the House a very full account of the position of Civil Defence in the country as a whole in the course of the debate on the Civil Defence Estimates on 5th July. If the hon. Member wishes information on any matters specifically affecting Civil Defence in Scotland, I shall be glad to supply it.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister suggest that the Home Secretary is a substitute for the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish affairs? Is he aware that in this debate no statement was made about Civil Defence in Scotland, although one H-bomb would kill one-third of the population of Scotland, according to estimates? Is it not time that we bad a Scottish statement?

Mr. Stuart: The policy is the same both for Scotland and England. I am afraid that if I had made a long statement like that of my right hon. and learned Friend it would have been rather boring to the House.

Leith Town Hall (Rebuilding)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Edinburgh Town Council regarding the rebuilding of Leith Town Hall; and if he will now announce his decision.

Mr. J. Stuart: The town council were informed last year that I was unable in the circumstances then existing to authorise the reinstatement of Leith Town Hall. They have recently renewed their application for authority to proceed with this work, and I am considering it sympathetically.

Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this hall was one of the first casualties of the war, that it is now very many years since its destruction took place, and that it was the only decent-sized hall in the town? May we not expect a very early answer to this Question?

Mr. Stuart: I hope to be able to give it soon. The town council has been asked for details of the work which it wishes to carry out, and I will do my best to see that the matter is expedited.

Mr. Hoy: Will the Secretary of State also see that his reply is a favourable one?

ACQUIRED LAND (DISPOSAL)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to set up a Select Committee, with wider terms of reference than the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, to investigate the methods of acquisition and disposal of land by Government Departments, and to recommend where necessary that public inquiries be held.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): No, Sir. The Government have just announced a new policy on the disposal of compulsorily acquired land, and there is to be a comprehensive inquiry into the Ministry of Agriculture's


methods of dealing with transactions in agricultural land. We must await the result of the inquiry and see the effect of these measures before instituting wider investigations.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Prime Minister aware that the revelations in the Crichel Down and Woollett cases now show that the Crichel Down disease is spreading to other Departments, and will he take drastic action to protect the rights of Her Majesty's subjects, to stop this Communist technique of trying to govern by bureaucracy and to set the people free?

The Prime Minister: I think that point is covered by my answer.

Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's letter addressed to the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries and published in the Press makes it quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not share the opinion that there was any grievous offence caused over Crichel Down—[HON. MEMBERS:"No."]—and since the Prime Minister said he does not think there was an offence, will he please take no notice of the hon. Gentleman opposite?

EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange for Her Majesty's Government to dedicate a further two divisions to the European Defence Community.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Prime Minister remember that, in the last foreign affairs debate, he said that the dedication of one division had not made any difference to that division, but had given a great deal of pleasure to the French? Would not the dedication of three divisions give three times as much pleasure, or was the original dedication of the first division a very poor joke at the expense of the French, being meaningless?

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister in view of the result of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China and the effective participation by the Foreign

Secretary, what steps Her Majesty's Government now intend to take directly and through the United Nations to explore the possibility of a general pacific settlement of outstanding matters causing international tension in the Middle and Far East.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding his meeting with Mr. Malenkov.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the success of the Geneva Conference in arranging a ceasefire in Indo-China and the proof that negotiations can succeed, he will now attempt to arrange a big three conference to discuss international difficulties.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my previous statements on the subject of a top level conference. Her Majesty's Government intend to take all possible steps to decrease tension, whether through established bodies or by special methods.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Do I understand that repetition is not permitted in this House, and that, when the Prime Minister says he has nothing to add, that is repetition?

Mr. Speaker: The only order against repetition is when it is tedious.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Prime Minister consider a hard negative rather disappointing, and, in the circumstances, seeing that the omens are rather encouraging at this time, cannot he give us a more definite assurance on what he might do in the near future?

Mr. Osborne: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what he has done to the official Opposition, who now regard him as the world's great apostle of peace when three years ago they were accusing him of being the warmonger?

Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that in subject-matter Questions Nos. 45, 48 and 49 may be said to have been partly covered by the recent Note from Russia, will the House be told the Government's answer before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

The Prime Minister: I cannot guarantee that the complexities of the situation will be cleared away within the next few


days. The recent proposal which has been made by the Soviet Government raises important questions connected with conferences, all of which must be discussed between the three allies.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not be extremely undesirable for the House to disperse for the Summer Recess without knowing what the answer will be on a matter of this sort?

The Prime Minister: The House does disperse at different seasons of the year, and I understood that the right hon. Gentleman himself had made his plans for distant journeys. We should not wish to interfere with them.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he really believes that he and the other nations concerned cannot make up their minds on this very important matter before 9th August?

The Prime Minister: The Soviet answer to our message of May took over two months to prepare, and was delivered only two days ago. I really think that we must have an opportunity of considering it.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Prime Minister whether, since he informed a Liberal Party deputation on 3rd February, 1953, that a factual inquiry into the subject of electoral reform was not excluded, he will advise Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into systems of election, with terms of reference similar to those of the commission which reported in 1910.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Mallalieu: Having regard to the great dissatisfaction which has been voiced somewhat volubly in a distant quarter in the party opposite with regard to the Boundary Commission and its redistribution Report, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a suitable moment at which to have this and kindred electoral matters discussed, and would it not be best for him to meet his enemies in the gates before they have a chance of worsting him again?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I need the aid of a Royal Commission for the discussions to which the hon. and learned Member draws my attention.

Mr. Wade: Putting aside all party considerations in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that under the existing system a majority of Members of this House may be elected by a minority of votes in the country, in view of the fact that a small transfer of votes may so affect the constitution of the House that it may alter the whole course of events for a period of five years, and also in view of the anomalies and injustices to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred on 7th March, 1950, whether he will now consider setting up an impartial inquiry into the electoral system?

The Prime Minister: The question of proportional representation is not a novel one at all. It has been repeatedly inquired into and considered from this point and from that, both on a party and a non-party basis. I think the general opinion is that logically there is a lot to be said for it but, in fact and in practice, it has brought to a standstill and to futility almost every Parliament in which it has ever been tried.

Mr. H. Morrison: Whilst not disagreeing with the Prime Minister on the merits of the case, which we are not discussing, may I draw attention to the fact that this is a Question asking for an inquiry? It is not a Question on the merits of the matter. Does the Prime Minister not remember that when he was Leader of the Opposition he asked the Labour Government to institute an inquiry, and that when I declined he attacked me with great vigour. Is he not therefore guilty of misleading and deceiving this poor Liberal Party then, and ever since? Why does he not be straight for once and say "Yes" or "No," instead of deceiving and misleading them?

The Prime Minister: I certainly say, in these electoral matters, that I have never held an absolutely immovable attitude with regard to the accidental play of particular circumstances and conditions.

Mr. Morrison: Does the Prime Minister expect anybody to understand that


answer? Is it his hope that nobody will understand it? Is it not the case that when he was in opposition he demanded this very inquiry and denounced us for refusing it, and now, with all the—I had better not say what I think—confidence in the world he gets up and refuses us the very thing which he demanded in opposition and promised to the Liberal Party?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, the outcome of four years thoroughly justifies reconsideration of the matter by any responsible Minister.

BRITISH AIRLINER, HAINAN (SHOOTING DOWN)

Mr. H. Morrison (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement about the latest incidents connected with the shooting down of a British aircraft off Hainan.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. On 24th July the United States Secretary of State announced that two United States aircraft carriers had been ordered to proceed to the scene of the Chinese attack upon the Cathay Pacific airliner as a result of which three United States nationals were injured and three were still missing. The task of these ships and their aircraft was to conduct and protect further search and rescue operations in the vicinity of the crash.
I have been informed by the United States Government that on 26th July at approximately 10.05 a.m., local time, two of these carrier-based aircraft, while on rescue operations seeking possible survivors, were attacked over the high seas approximately 13 miles from Hainan by two Chinese fighter aircraft, apparently of the same type as shot down our airliner. A Chinese gunboat also opened fire upon these United States planes. The United States aircraft returned the fire from the planes and two Chinese aircraft were shot down.
I have been requested to instruct Her Majesty Chargé d'Affaires in Peking to convey a protest to the Chinese Government on behalf of the United States Government, both in respect of the six United States citizens killed and wounded in the

attack on our British airliner, and the wanton interference with search and rescue operations in the area of the incident. Instructions have been sent accordingly to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires.
I should add that on 23rd July, on being informed of the Cathay Pacific crash, the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department communicated with White Cloud airfield, Canton, by radio, stating that there had been a crash off Hainan and that search aircraft, of which details and markings were given, were taking off. About an hour later a message was received from Canton air traffic control that a Sunderland aircraft already in the area would be permitted to remain but that any other war planes sent to search would be fired on without warning if they approached land. This message was against all international custom and behaviour. Her Majesty's Representative has been instructed to make a protest at Peking in respect of the nature of this message.

Mr. Morrison: The House will be obliged to the Foreign Secretary. I am sure we all hope that there will be no further incidents in connection with this most unhappy matter. If any further factual information or any other information should arrive, will the Foreign Secretary do his best to inform the House about it?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Perhaps I should add this information, which has reached me. It is that Hong Kong has reported that four fighter aircraft circled over a French Constellation aircraft about 75 miles off Hainan Island. According to the pilot of the French aircraft, the purpose of the fighters appeared to be identification. The pilot has been interrogated by the Royal Air Force authorities in Hong Kong, who are satisfied that the fighters were M.I.G.s. The House will note the distinction between a search for identification and the action previously taken. I thought the House ought to know about this, in view of the Press reports.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that there is nothing unusual in aircraft searching the vicinity of an accident, or after an incident of this nature, for anything up to two days?

Mr. Eden: That is why I instructed our Chargé d'Affaires to make this further representation to the Chinese Government about their refusal to allow the aeroplanes to make the search.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the United States Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet is reported in today's British Press as saying that his forces have standing instructions to be quick on the trigger, and whilst in no way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that matter comes within the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Donnelly: I was just coming to the point, Mr. Speaker. Whilst in no way dissenting from what the Foreign Secretary had to say yesterday, or condoning Chinese action, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the grave implication and involvement in which this may land British forces in the Far East if it is pursued to its logical conclusion? Can he give the House an assurance that he is in close touch with the United States Government, warning them of the extreme tenseness of the situation which may be created by American action?

Mr. Eden: I really am very reluctant to make any more comment on this matter. I do not think it would be helpful. The Question of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was fully justified, in that these later incidents arose out of what happened to a British aircraft; but we ought not to pursue in this House what happens between two foreign countries. Everybody knows that the object of Her Majesty's Government, if they possibly can, is to prevent incidents recurring. I do not think we can help by commenting, either in a friendly way or adversely.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman add information on one point? Is it clear that the American aircraft concerned were actually outside Chinese territorial waters at the time? The report is that they were.

Mr. Eden: The report which I have received—I was not there—is that they were 13 miles outside territorial waters. I think I gave this information to the House just now.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATE ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. Wigg: May I raise a matter in connection with Thursday's business, Mr. Speaker, as it affects all back benchers on both sides of the House? For the first time in the history of the House, I believe, there has appeared on the notice board in the Lobby a notice giving the subjects for debate on Thursday evening. Never before has such a notice appeared in connection with a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and I think the House ought to be given some explanation whether this constitutes a precedent and whether in future Members have to submit their names and subjects to you, or through the usual channels, in connection with such a debate.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the historic rights of back benchers is to raise any subject that they choose on this occasion. Whether so intended or not, it is an infringement of the rights of back-bench Members that such a notice should be put on the notice board. I hope that, having considered the matter —I gave you notice that I intended to raise it at this hour—you will give your attention to it and perhaps, in your wisdom, you may find that in future it would be far better that such a notice should not be put on the notice board, particularly when it is in juxtaposition to a similar notice relating to the Adjournment. The two kinds of debate are of a quite different character. I hope that you will be able to guide us in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member has brought the matter to my attention. The incident, of course, arose out of what I understood was the wish of the Opposition, to devote more time than usual to the claims of back benchers in these debates, rather than the absorption of all the time by a regular Front Bench Motion. That is a motive with which I sympathise. Hon. Members have written to me asking that I might notice them when the latter part of the debate takes place on Thursday, and these things were posted up.
Of course, I must make it clear—and I am glad of this opportunity to do so—that the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill enables any hon. Member to speak on any matter which touches the administrative responsibility of any Minister


who is in receipt of any of the grants comprised in the Appropriation Bill, and the publication of the fact that notice has been given by hon. Members that they intend to raise certain subjects in no way limits the scope of the debate. I will take into account what the hon. Member says, and I am sorry if it was misleading in any way. I am glad of the opportunity of putting it right, but I want to make it quite clear that the rights of hon. Members are in no way affected.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. Is it not unusual, Mr. Speaker, for the official Opposition to use the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill in order to have a debate on a matter which is disclosed beforehand? It is most unusual to organise such a debate for back benchers because that has the effect of depriving other back benchers of raising the subjects which they may wish to raise, especially in view of the fact that, most unusually, in my respectful submission, the vote was taken on a Motion from the Government benches in a recent discussion on the Consolidated Fund itself. Therefore, if we have three or four back benchers organised by the official Opposition beforehand, the vote might easily be taken in that case before any back bencher has the opportunity of raising his grievances.

Mr. Speaker: On that I should say two things. First of all, I have no knowledge of any organised effort on the part of these hon. Members. They wrote to me individually requesting that I might, if I could, give them a chance to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and, as I thought that it would be for the general convenience of all hon. Members to know what subjects were likely to be raised, I agreed, because more than one hon. Member is interested in a particular subject. As regards this procedure having any effect on the rights of hon. Members, I am sure that is not so, because hon. Members, as I have said, are entitled to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Whiteley: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no organised attempt to arrange subjects by back benchers? The suggestion that we made to you, Sir, was that this time should be

allocated from seven o'clock onwards to back benchers, not only on the Opposition side of the House, but also on the Government side. There has been no organisation of any kind. It was simply suggested to you, Mr. Speaker, that you might make the arrangement.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I ought to say that I do not think that the misapprehension to which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has given voice is generally shared, because, since the publication of the list, I have had further requests from hon. Members who wish to raise their own subjects, so I think that disposes of that.

Mr. Hale: Further to the point of order. The period to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is referring is the period after seven o'clock on Thursday. Up till then, arrangements have been made through the usual channels, and no one has dissented from them. But now, contrary to all procedure and practice, there appears in the Lobby a list of subjects, starting with Brazil, for debate at seven o'clock on Thursday. What is a back bencher to do? I have not been in the habit of communicating with the Chair on these matters, because it was never the practice to do so. It was the practice on the last day, the Friday, when it was a matter for the Chair to allocate the time.
I want to write to the Home Secretary and tell him that I propose to raise the question of the hydrogen bomb, which appears to be a matter of importance. How do I do it? Do I write, or am I to pop in during Brazil or during Suez, or during someone else's one and a half hours, or do I say that I am going to assert, on the one day in the year that I am entitled to do so, my privilege as a back bencher to act like a back bencher, to speak like a back bencher, and to say precisely what I think? This is the one day on which that privilege is there, and we are very reluctant to let it go without at least a little argument about it.

Mr. Speaker: I have not in any way let it go. It is still open to hon. Members under the Standing Order to do as they please, but my experience of debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill is that the general convenience of the House is achieved if we take one subject after


another continuously rather than fly from China to Peru, or from Brazil to somewhere else.

Miss Ward: Further to the point of order. I was going to seek your guidance tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to know, as a matter of constitutional interest, whether I should be entitled to speak before the formal Motion was put on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I gather that it is the privilege of hon. Members, if they so desire, to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I notice that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who is very cognisant of constitutional matters, decided that there was going to be a debate on iron and steel. As a back bencher on this side of the House, I have much more important things to raise than iron and steel, and I have no desire to sell my heritage for a mess of pottage. I was going to seek your guidance tomorrow, Sir, as to whether, if I so desired, I might assert my constitutional right to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill before the Motion was put formally to the House.
With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I always understood that before Supply was granted there was a right to seek to redress grievances. As I understand it, right hon. and hon. Members opposite are prepared to overthrow all that, and formally to pass the Consolidated Fund Bill. Surely, it is true that once we have voted the money, we put ourselves in a very weak position. I have no desire to put myself in a weak position.
When I discuss matters affecting my constituents and my part of the world, I do not want to let the money pass if I want some of it. I think it far better, if I may say so with great respect, that if I want to raise grievances arising out of matters which affect my constituents, I should be allowed to do so before the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South gets the headlines for his iron and steel. My constituents are much more interested in the matters that I want to raise than in the right hon. Gentleman talking about iron and steel. I wish to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I shall be entitled to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill before the Motion is formally put to the House.

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the hon. Lady, this is, of course, purely an

arrangement made through the usual channels for the general convenience of the House and has nothing to do with me. The Question will be proposed from the Chair, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Bowles: The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is exempted business and the debate can go on all night, but if this is to be put formally at the beginning of the business of the day, it is part of the business, and it comes to an end at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: That is true, but it has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Wigg: I am extremely obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling. In raising this matter I have no quarrel with the usual channels. The House would obviously find itself in chaos if arrangements of this kind were not made. The only point I want to raise is the matter of the notice. It has been put on the notice board for the first time, and may I say, with great respect, that I hope that it will be the last time?

Mr. Bevan: As far as I understand, there is no reason in precedent why the Opposition could not officially raise a subject on the Consolidated Fund Bill without taking the Motion formally at all, thereby leaving the House in possession of that subject after the first subject, officially declared, has been exhausted. It is not unusual—in fact it has happened very frequently indeed—for the official Opposition to indicate through the usual channels that it wishes to raise a certain subject on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but there is no reason why the House should not be left in possession of the Consolidated Fund Bill after the official Opposition has actually had its say.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know whether I can be helpful, but I wish to be. The problem for the Opposition was that we wanted a debate on iron and steel. We have very strong feelings about the sale of the iron and steel undertakings to private capitalism. We not only want a debate but a Motion; we not only want a Motion, but a Division. I believe that that is the proper fighting line for the Opposition to take in the matter. If, we left it on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we could not get a division. [Interruption.] Of course we could not, because we


cannot vote against the whole of the Supply for the country, including old-age pensions, and so on. I do not want to play into the hands of the Government. Nevertheless, we have normally, on many such occasions before, had Motions and taken the time of the House on those. It is within the jurisdiction of the Opposition, and of course we consulted our friends about it.
However, we had had representations that back-bench Members wanted to raise various smallish matters affecting constituencies and not appropriate for the debate on the Adjournment on Friday. It was because we wished to meet the desires of back-bench Members that, in consultation with them this course was taken. But of course, Sir, I submit that it does not prejudice the right of the House to continue at a later hour on Thursday the debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and for such matters then to be raised as hon. Members may wish.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is perfectly right. Of course, I never thought that it did prejudice that right. I think that when the Question is proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," that is exempted business, and there is nothing that can stop the debate except the will of the House itself.

Mr. Benn: May I put a further point to you, Sir? The practice and rules of this House depend on precedent. By posting a list, I submit that you have created a precedent which the House in future can only deal with by a Motion.
I want to submit that to put up a list is equivalent to putting up a list of the speakers in the order in which they are to speak. It is a fact that this is the practice in another place. Any hon. Member who goes to another place in the afternoon may, if he wishes, see who is to speak and in what order and adjust his tea-time accordingly. It is not the practice of this House, and although you may have a private list of speakers in a debate—and I believe that you may—you do not publish it; although you may have a private idea in your mind as to what subject is to be allowed on the Second and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, you would not publish it. I hope that you will acquit me of any disappointment in this matter, because I have been fortunate in getting the opportunity to raise a subject on Friday.

Mr. Speaker: I will take into consideration what has been said. I am very anxious not to create in the minds of hon. Members any confusion as to their own rights. This was a list of those who had actually applied up to date to speak on the Thursday. I think that it would probably have been as well that it should not have been published. I am always to take advice from hon. Members and I shall do my best about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." — [Mr. Gammans.]

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add: "upon this day three months."
This is an unusual Amendment, but this is an unusual situation. It is an unusual situation in that this is an unusual Bill, with no electoral mandate behind it. Moreover, whilst realising that I must not discuss the merits of the Bill itself—and I do not propose to do so—I must call attention to the procedure which has been adopted in connection with this Measure.
Here, without provocation and, in our judgment, without need, a Guillotine was imposed upon us. Consequently, the debates on the Bill were inadequate, and we would prefer more time in which to consider the Amendments which have come down from another place. That Guillotine was a pretty cruel and harsh affair, and, having regard to this part of the history of the procedure on the Bill, we feel that there is no need to hasten the consideration of this series of important Amendments which have reached us from their Lordships' House. In connection with the discussion of the Lords Amendments in their Lordships' House, it is the case that in a sense they themselves were guillotined.
Here was an important Bill going to another place. The Government tried to get the Committee stage through in two days. They actually got it through in three days which, I think, was all too short a time for their Lordships' House to consider the Measure. How did the Government do that? They did it by threatening to keep their Lordships up all night—and some of them are not of years when they wish to sit up all night. I do not say that scornfully but understandingly.
Therefore, the Government, without a formal Guillotine, which I think, although I am not quite sure, they could not easily impose upon their Lordships,

have in effect imposed one on them by threatening to keep them up all night unless they did as they were told. That seems to me to be pretty shameful. Three days was too short a period for them to consider the important matters involved in the Bill and the various Amendments, and to discharge the functions of revision for which their Lordships' House is deservedly famous. Consequently, therefore, this Bill has not been adequately considered either here or in another place.
4.0 p.m.
Quite shortly after the Third Reading in another place we get these Amendments before us, and we get them right at the end of a Session of Parliament before the break-up for the Summer Recess. In these circumstances, it seems to us that there is no bursting hurry to get this Bill through this side of the Summer Recess. Nobody wants it, except a few vested interests represented by a handful of Members on the other side of the House who dictate to the Government. Their dictation to the Government is a more serious offence than is the dictation of a larger body on other matters, which comes from the "supreme Soviet" upstairs, namely, the 1922 Committee.
Therefore, it appears to us that nothing will be lost, except perhaps the Bill—which would be a good thing—but even that, I am afraid, will not be lost if the further consideration of their Lordships' Amendments is held over until the House comes back after the Summer Recess. It will give us more time to consider these Amendments. We have to rush our consideration. We have been unduly pushed for time in drafting Amendments to the proposed Amendments. In all the circumstances, I think it is reasonable that, instead of the Lords Amendments being taken today, we should postpone that matter for three months.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I want to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), for these reasons. Neither the advertisers nor the advertising agents are ready at this stage to operate commercial television—and no wonder. For a year now they have been confused and bemused by the alterations to the Bill. At first, they were to have sponsored television, and this was a perfectly simple thing for clever advertising agents and their not so intelligent clients to


understand, for here was a model set before us by the United States, and all that was necessary was to send the youngest members of the agency to the United States with a comfortable spending allowance to find out what the American advertisers were doing. This was something which the advertisers and the advertising agents could understand.
But then the Bill was changed, and we were not to have sponsorship, and so the advertising agents and the advertisers had to go into a huddle again to find out how they could alter the plans to meet the new situation. Before the Bill left this House, it was altered still further, giving greater complication to the advertisers and the agents, and now the Lords Amendments come to alter the Bill again. I do not think we want to get into a situation where the advertisers and the advertising agents are forced to take action which they do not want to take. It would be a deplorable thing—and I am sure that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with this later on—if they had to rely simply on the canned television programmes which are now waiting on the quays in New
York—

Mr. Speaker: It is not relevant to this Motion to discuss the Amendments to the Bill.

Sir L. Plummer: What I was trying to do, Mr. Speaker, was to illustrate the need to give people who have to operate commercial television more time to decide how it could be operated. If they were given a little longer time to study the effects of the changes in the Bill made in this House and the changes proposed to be made by another place, they would be better fitted to present to the country commercial television in a form which would be acceptable. It is because the alternative is confusion and bad imported programmes, that I hope the Government will give serious consideration to this Amendment.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: There is a case for postponing consideration of the Lords Amendments on a number of grounds, but I want to put only two grounds briefly. There has been a suggestion, which appeared to be sympathetically considered by the Government, that before we finally dispose of

the Bill altogether they should give some indication of the membership of the Authority. There are a lot of rumours going round. Everybody knows that Lord Soulbury's name is mentioned as a possible Chairman, and we hear that certain other people are considered. One reason for postponing the final consideration is, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that Parliament should have an opportunity of knowing who are to be the members of the Authority before we dispose of the Bill.
The second ground is that it is quite disgraceful that the Government have proceeded with this unimportant Bill in preference to a number of others which are much more important and which some of my hon. Friends and the Government know are urgently needed. We would like to know why we should have to deal with this Bill today instead of getting on with something which would be for the common weal.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I quite understand that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) would like to postpone this Bill. He has never hidden his dislike of the Bill, and he would like to do away with it altogether. I can quite understand that, but I hope I shall be able to convince the Opposition that they have not been unfairly treated. To start with, we have already spent an enormous amount of time on this Bill. We spent two days on Second Reading, seven days in Committee, and two days on Report and Third Reading. That is quite outside the time that we spent in considering the White Papers upon which this Bill is based.
My second point is that there have been five whole days since the Lords Amendments were put down and that that time has been quite sufficient for hon. Members to put down a number of Amendments. I think it was last Thursday that the Lords Amendments were finally decided.

Mr. Shackleton: Will the Minister say how many Parliamentary days the Opposition have had since then and the time that the Lords Amendments appeared on our Order Paper?

Mr. Gammans: It was last Thursday that the Lords Amendments were finally


decided, and I should have thought that gave ample time to hon. Members opposite. In fact, it has proved ample time because they have put down a number of Amendments.
My third point is that almost all the Amendments that we are considering today were put down in the other place by Labour Peers; in other words, they are Labour Amendments. Further, almost all the points that we are discussing in these Amendments have already been discussed in this House, some of us think, almost ad nauseam.
My final point is that in these Amendments which their Lordships have submitted there is no point of substance which really alters the main structure of the Bill. Therefore, if we consider those arguments, I do not think the Opposition can have any legitimate case for suggesting that they have been unfairly treated, other than the grievance which I know they have—and I do not blame them for having it—namely, that they dislike the Bill altogether. For those reasons, I cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Assistant Postmaster-General was quite unconvincing in the remarks he made. We have had only two Parliamentary days—which certainly is not long enough—to study the Amendments and statements made in another place. It is necessary, in considering them, to go through the debates which have taken place and the arguments which have been put forward. It may be that certain of the Amendments, if not the majority of them, were put forward by Opposition Peers. That would be an additional reason for hon. Members opposite to study them. It may be that hon. Members opposite are not very keen on those Opposition Amendments, because they opposed them during debates in this House.
It was suggested that there has been an enormous amount of time spent on this Bill. That might have been true if the Bill which is now in its last stage were similar to the original White Paper and the original Bill, but there have been so many changes as it passed through this House and another place that the time to discuss those changes has not been adequate from our point of view. As the Assistant Postmaster-General knows, a very large number of the Amendments

that we put down were not discussed in this House, but some of them were very important indeed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) pointed out, even in another place the business was rushed towards the end and inadequate time was given to the discussion of the Amendments.
One further reason why we need more time in which to consider these Lords Amendments and why this Amendment should be accepted is that there are contradictions between what has been said in another place and what was said in this House by the Assistant Postmaster-General. There has been a change of front on the part of the Postmaster-General in quite a few particulars. Statements were made in another place which completely contradicted what was said here by the Assistant Postmaster-General. It will take some little time to find out from the Assistant Postmaster-General exactly where the Government stand now, the reasons those changes were made and what exactly are the interpretations we should put, not only on some of the Lords Amendments, but on some of the statements made in another place. I therefore suggest to the Home Secretary that he should give consideration to this Amendment and consider whether we could not be given more time to study the Lords Amendments.

Mr. William Ross: The Government are obviously determined to finish with this wretched Bill, judging by the remarks of the Assistant Postmaster-General. Referring to previous discussions, he said that we had had discussions ad nauseam. I think it is obvious from that remark, and from the way in which the Guillotine was introduced, that the Government wanted to cut down discussion altogether.
We are concerned, not only with adequate discussion, but with the proper kind of discussion. We shall not get that unless we have proper time in which to study the Amendments made in another place and decide exactly how we should proceed. It is all very well for the Assistant Postmaster-General to say that the Bill was finished in another place just a few days ago. Is he of opinion that we have had nothing else to do in the past few days? This is not the only


Bill which has been pushed through at the last moment.
We have had the Scottish Town and Country Planning Bill. This matter is very relevant to the argument whether the Television Bill should be dealt with at present. The Town and Country Planning Bill has not even reached Report stage in this House and the Government are so anxious to ensure that Scottish hon. Members should get down to the business of considering it that the Government have sent them a brief of 34 pages with the proposed Amendments, and reasons for those Amendments, to that Bill.
How are we to give adequate attention to that sort of thing, to the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, to teachers' superannuation and such things all in the glorious five days when the Assistant Postmaster-General has been counting his days of freedom before once again having to face the Commons with this horrible Bill? I know that he is sick of the sight and sound of it; so have we been from the moment we first read it. We want to make it as innocuous as possible and to have proper time to study the Amendments made in another place.
I sincerely hope that at this stage the Assistant Postmaster-General will not expect us to believe everything he says about what has happened to the Bill. He has given so many assurances and said so many things about this Bill, he has changed his mind about it so much, that we should resist any suggestion that now is the time, and only now, when we can discuss the Lords Amendments.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in his plea that consideration of the Lords Amendments should be postponed for three months. I do so because we have had very short notice of these Amendments. Altogether there are 21 Lords Amendments, which I saw for the first time yesterday, and there are 31 Amendments in all to the Bill in its present form. I say that the Government are rushing this thing indecently.
The Assistant Postmaster-General referred to the time that has been taken on the Bill and said that we had seven days on the Committee stage in this House

and that there were three days left for the Lords to get through what we had done in seven days. I should say that the amount of time the Lords gave to the Bill was entirely inadequate, especially when regard is had to the fact that the seven days we had were that amount only because of the Guillotine. Had there been free discussion of this Bill, it would have taken much longer, both in this House and in another place.
There are two reasons why the Motion should not be accepted. First, this House ought to be considering matters of very great importance to the country and not considering this Bill. It is a shame that miners' safety has had to be sacrificed in order that the interests of commercial friends of this Government could be looked after. The Mines and Quarries Bill is of far greater consequence to the people of this country than is the Television Bill. It is astonishing that, although my hon. Friends were pressed to hurry on with that Bill if they wanted it before the Recess, we should now find that it has to take its turn behind commercial television. That is going too far. It is treating the House wrongly. It shows a wrong sense of values. In this matter the Assistant Postmaster-General is treating the House of Commons very harshly.
I see the Minister of Fuel and Power present. It is for him to say whether or not in Committee upstairs hon. Members from mining constituencies were told that if they wanted the Mines and Quarries Bill they had to hurry. I should have thought that when we were discussing the Motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered" we were entitled to say that the time could be more usefully employed and that the time of the House of Commons ought not to be used on what we regard as something representing a minority interest.
There is a second reason for opposing the Motion. It is the amount of time we have had to study the Amendments which have come from another place. As the Assistant Postmaster-General knows, many of the Amendments accepted by his noble Friend in another place completely contradict the stand the Assistant Postmaster-General took in this House when we discussed the Bill. In that way the Postmaster-General has been far more gracious and has acquired far more credit in another place than the Assistant Postmaster-General has in this


House. It would be only fair to this House for the discussion not to take place today in order that we might have much more adequate time to see what is being proposed by the Lords Amendments in connection with a Bill which no one wants, except minority commercial interests in the City.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There are two points that strike me about this matter. The first is that it seems most undesirable to appoint the members of an authority, particularly of this Independent Television Authority, just at the moment when we are all going away and the House will not sit for some months. We do not at present know who they are going to be. At the earliest possible moment after they are appointed a statement about their remuneration, and so on, has to be made. That we shall not be able to consider until we come back in October. Whether meanwhile they will be paid or unpaid, I do not know. What happens supposing the remuneration proves, in the view of the House, to be unsatisfactory because it is either too large or too small?
As a matter of general principle, one has to remember that this Authority is the only safeguard between the programme contractors and the advertising agents on the one hand and the public on the other, and without going into the merits of the matter it is perfectly clear that the members of the Authority will have a function to fulfil of the highest possible importance in a matter which has divided public opinion all over the country not at all on ordinary party lines. I would suggest that for that reason alone it is bad practice to put into law just at this moment a Bill which depends so largely on the constitution of the Authority and of public approval of that Authority when it is constituted.
There is another matter. I do not, of course, want to promote any fratricidal strife between the Tory Party in another place and here. I do not want to encourage it in any way, but I feel that another place has had a very rough time in this matter and that which it has been unable, for reasons of time, to consider fully needs more detailed consideration here; and the more time to prepare that consideration. What I have in mind is this. I understand that it is not the practice to have the Guillotine in another

place. There is something rather Alice in Wonderland in that in this country we should Guillotine the Commons and never Guillotine the Lords.
Of course, it is true in the nature of the case that the Guillotine is a threat of eternity. In this instance, unable to offer their Lordships a threat of eternity, the Government apparently offered them a threat of a number of sleepless hours in the middle of the night. I understand that at one period, when they had got to an Amendment, No. 16, they were told they had to get to Amendment No. 60 before they went to bed. That kind of thing does not promote proper detailed consideration of a matter on which in another place very strong and very different opinions were held and on which it was wholly appropriate that special points of view should have been expressed and expressed fully.
Without wishing unduly to protect their Lordships from the Tory Party, I feel that if ever there was a case for doing it this is it, and that this is the time to say that they have not really had the chance to express themselves fully, they have not really had the chance of considering all these matters in the way they would have liked to have considered them, they have not even had the chance of considering fully all the possible Amendments. All we are getting here are the hurried truncated fruits of the Government's threat to keep those elderly and distinguished persons out of the beds which they no doubt desired, and in a spirit of courtesy towards another place, and to prevent these bullying tactics of the Tory Party in the future, I suggest that the Government be called upon to pay the penalty of delaying a Bill, which nobody wants and about which there is no hurry, for a while, until we come back later in the year.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I think the Assistant Postmaster-General was a little optimistic when, in such a brief and inadequate speech, he hoped to convince the Opposition of the desirability of proceeding to consider the Lords Amendments. When we have considered the Lords Amendments the Bill will pass out of the control of the House. If the Lords Amendments should be agreed to, the Bill will go straight for the Royal Assent. Thereafter we shall have no opportunity of considering any


of the matters which may arise out of the passing of the Measure. It is not suitable for the Assistant Postmaster-General to mention the amount of Parliamentary time spent on the Bill as if it were in the ordinary run of Bills. This is a most unusual Bill. It is a revolutionary Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I must again remind the House that we are discussing the question whether we should consider the Lords Amendments. We are not considering the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, Sir. I was hoping to show in one moment that there is good cause for deferring consideration of the Lords Amendments until we hear the names of the members of the Independent Television Authority designate. I quite understand that the Authority cannot be appointed until the Bill becomes an Act, but I think that it would do much to enable us to consider the Lords Amendments in the light of the requirements of the situation as we see them if we were to defer consideration of the Lords Amendments until the names of the members of the Authority designate have been announced, and, indeed, until we

have heard a little more about how they will proceed to discharge their task.

The Government would not lose the Bill if consideration of the Lords Amendments were postponed until we return. We could then consider the Lords Amendments. It is not, perhaps, the Lords Amendments themselves that are of such great importance as the circumstances in which we are asked to consider them, for I am sure that we could more profitably consider other matters in the few hours of Parliamentary time that remain before we go into Recess. I hope that it will be possible for the Assistant Postmaster-General to defer to the wish of the Opposition in this matter. Let us postpone consideration of the Lords Amendments until we come back after the Recess, and meantime pass to other more important matters.

Mr. Edward Heath (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Edward Heath (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 225.

Division No. 207]
AYES
[4.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gammans, L. D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Colegate, W. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glover, D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gough, C. F. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Aster, Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Halt, John (Wycombe)


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfield)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hay, John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Birch, Nigel
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Black, C. W.
Drewe, Sir C.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Holland-Martin, C. J


Boyle-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hollis, M. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duthie, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P


Braine, B. R.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Horobin, I. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Iremonger, T. L.


Campbell, Sir David
Fort, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Carr, Robert
Foster, John
Jennings, Sir Roland


Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambo &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)




Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Kaberry, D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kerr, H. W.
Odey, G. W.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lambton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Storey, S.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Osborne, C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Page, R. G.
Studholme, H. G.


Lindsay, Martin
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Summers, G. S.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon.O.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Turner, H. F. L


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ramsden, J. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


McKibbin, A.J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Redmayne, M.
Vosper, D. F.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Renton, D. L. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H. A.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maude, Angus
Russell, R. S.
Well wood, W.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Med[...]icott, Brig. F.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mellor, Sir John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Molson, A. H. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wills, G.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Mabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)



Neave, Airey
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholls, Harmar
Sneddon, W. McN.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Soames, Capt. C.
Mr. Oakshott.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Speir, R. M.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Clunie, J.
Gibson, C. W.


Adams, Richard
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Glanville, James


Albu, A. H.
Cove, W. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Aden, Arthur (Bosworth)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hen. D. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R. H. S
Grey, C. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Baird, J.
Dairies, P.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Balfour, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bartley, P.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Benson, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Blackburn, F.
Deer, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hastings, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H.


Beardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bowden, H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hobson. C. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holmes, Horace


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holt, A. F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Houghton, Douglas


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, J. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fienburgh, W.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carmichael, J.
Forman, J. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Chapman, W. D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)







Isaacs. Rt. Hon. G. A
Orbach, M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oswald, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Palmer, A. M. F
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pannell, Charles
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Summerskill Rt Hon. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Keenan, W.
Paton, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kenyon, C.
Pearson, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Key, RT. Hon. C. W
Peart, T. F.
Thornton, E.


King, Dr H. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Timmons, J.


Lawson, G. M.
Porter, G.
Tomney, F.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungeed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Lindgren, G. S.
Proctor, W. T.
Wade, D. W.


MacColl J. E.
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, H. W.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Worbey, W. N.


McLeavy, F.
Rankin, John
Watkins, T. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Richards, R.
West, D. G.


Manuel, A. C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mayhew, C. P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon, W.


Mellish, R. J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wigg, George


Messer, Sir F.
Ross, William
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mikardo, Ian
Royle, C.
Willey, F. T.


Mitchison, G. R.
Shackleton. E. A. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Monslow, W.
Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Moody, A. S.
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Simmons, G. J. (Brierley Hill)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mort, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.
Woodburn, R. Hon. A.


Moyle, A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Yates, V. F.


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)



Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oliver, G. H.
Snow, J. W.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

Question put accordingly "That 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes 225.

Division No. 208.]
AYES
[4.38 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Erroll, F. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Fell, A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Carr, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Channon, H
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Crinstead)
Fort, R.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cole, Norman
Foster, John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Colegate, W. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Banks, Col. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Barber, Anthony
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, L. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glover, D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gower, H. R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Birch, Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harris, Reader (Hasten)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Braine, B. R.
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Drewe, Sir C.
Hay, John


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Browne, Jack (Gevan)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Heath, Edward


Buchan.-Hepburn, Rt Hon. P. G. T
Duthie, W. S
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hollis, M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Molson, A. H. E.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Horobin, I. M-
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Water
Snadden, W. McN.


Horsbrugh, Bt. Hon. Florence
Moore, Sir Thomas
Soames, Capt. C.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Speir, R. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Neave, Airey
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Storey, S.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Odey, G. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Summers, G. S.


Kaberry, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. H.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford. N.)


Kerr, H. W.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Teeling, W.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Osborne, C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lambton, Viscount
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T
Peyton, J. W. W.
Tilney, John


Lindsay, Martin
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Turner, H. F. L.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, Maj- Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Vosper, D. F.


Longden, Gilbert
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ramsden, J. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Rayner, Brig. R
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McAdden, S. J.
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Rees-Davies, W. R
Waterhouse, Capt, Rt. Hon. C


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinston, H. A.


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wellwood, W.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas



Marples, A. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Scott, R. Donald
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and


Maude, Angus
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Mr. Legh




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Callaghan, L J
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Adams, Richard
Carmichael, J
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B A
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J
Fernyhough, E.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Chapman, W. D
Fienburgh, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Clunie, J
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forman, J. C.


Baird, J.
Cove, W. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Balfour, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Bartley, P.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gibson, C. W.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Glanville, James


Benson, G.
Daines, P.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Greenwood, Anthony


Blackburn, F
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Grenfell, Rt Hon. D. R


Blenkinsop, A
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grey, C. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boardman, H
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hale, Leslie


Bowden, H. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, Rt. Hon, Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bowles, F. G
Deer, G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, W. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hannan, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hastings, S.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hayman, F. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)







Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.
Snow, J. W.


Holmes, Horace
Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holt, A. F.
Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Sparks, J. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Steele, T.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Padley, W. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sylvester, G. O.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thornton, E.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parker, J.
Timmons, J.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Parkin, B. T
Tomney, F.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paton, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pearson, A.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Peart, T. F.
Wade, D. W.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wallace, H. W.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Porter, G.
Warbey, W. N.


Keenan, W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, T. E.


Kenyon, C.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lawson, G. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
West, D. G.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reeves, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lindgren, G. S.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wigg, George


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Richards, R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, F. T.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, David (Neath)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Manuel, A. C.
Royle, C.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mason, Roy
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Short, E. W.
Yates, V. F.


Messer, Sir F.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)



Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Monslow, W.
Skeffington, A M.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor


Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly

Clause 1.—(THE INDEPENDENT TELE VISION AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, leave out from "Act" to" "television" in line 10.

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment which was sponsored by the Opposition in another place and is little more than a drafting Amendment. It limits the life of the Authority to 10 years from the passing of the Act and not 10 years
…or such longer period as Parliament may hereafter determine …
The Amendment will, I am sure, give great pleasure to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because it was he who discussed this matter when we were dealing with it in

this House. As the House realises, constitutionally it makes not the slightest difference whether these words are in or whether they are out, because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out when we were discussing this matter, no Parliament can bind its successor, and at the end of 10 years it will be necessary for a subsequent Government which may wish to continue this scheme to introduce further legislation.
I have been looking through some of the Bills which have gone through this House in the past few years and I discovered, rather curiously, that some Bills, for no particular reason, had this phrase in and some had left it out; but as I have said, constitutionally it makes no difference at all.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Since the Assistant Postmaster-General says that, constitutionally, the Amendment makes no difference whatever to the Bill or to the future


of the I.T.A., it is difficult to understand how these words ever got into the Bill and why they were included. I have only one point to make. It arises from some remarks made in another place when this Amendment was being discussed.
The Assistant Postmaster-General will recall that during our previous debates we on this side were anxious that when the Charter of the B.B.C. came to an end, there would be the possibility of a general review. We suggested that the term of the I.T.A. should be the same as that of the B.B.C.; that is to say, that its Charter should end at the same time as the I.T.A. came to an end as far as legislation is concerned. Our Amendment was rejected by the Minister.
In another place, however, it has been pointed out, as was pointed out by the Home Secretary during our debates here, that it was intended that before 1962, which is when the Charter of the B.B.C. ends, there would be a general review of the whole field of broadcasting. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Home Secretary or the Assistant Postmaster-General would confirm that the general intention of the Government, which, in my view, is made better by the removal of these words, is not automatically through legislation to extend the term of the I.T.A. but is to have a general review of the whole field beforehand. Of course, the present occupants of the Government Front Bench will not then be there to do it, but for the record it is necessary to have this confirmation.
I make that suggestion because I was very worried by some remarks made in another place by the Postmaster-General, when he pointed out that there was every intention by the party which he represented to continue the I.T.A., irrespective of any review which took place. He warned the noble peers that the Amendment made no difference. I hope that the Home Secretary will give an assurance that the Postmaster-General has not gone back on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's word to the House that there would be a general review and that, therefore, it must not be accepted that future Parliaments are automatically committed to extending the life of the I.T.A. unless circumstances have changed. Now that the Amendment is before the House and as these matters were raised in another place, this assurance should be given.

Mr. Houghton: In his opening remarks the Assistant Postmaster-General conveyed the impression that this Lords Amendment contains more substance than it does. He was trying to mislead my hon. Friends when he suggested that we should be pleased to accept the Amendment. A moment later he confessed, as we well knew, that whether these words are left in or are taken out makes absolutely no difference.
The hon. Gentleman ought really to have suggested that this was merely an economy of words, that it implied no change of policy on the part of the Government, that it gave no assurance to those of us who wished to limit the life of the Independent Television Authority and that, in fact, the Amendment was of no consequence whatever. That would have been the honest way of moving, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has pointed out, in another place the intentions of the Government were made clear. That is to say, when the time comes, if Her Majesty's advisers are the same or of the same kind as at present, it is their firm hope and intention to ask the House of Commons to extend the period of operation of the I.T.A.; so that there is nothing in deleting these words to suggest that the Government think that 10 years is a long enough dose of commercial television. The hon. Gentleman ought to have been a little more straightforward when introducing the Amendment. I hope that as the later Amendments are reached he will tell us whether they have any merit or substance.
The fact that in some Bills these words appear and in others they do not is, perhaps, merely another reason for a little uniformity in draftsmanship and is not a question of any substance in framing our legislation. I agree to the Amendment on the clear understanding that it makes no difference, that the Government have no different intentions from those which were declared in this House and in another place, and that the public and those who are apprehensive about the effects of commercial television will derive so satisfaction whatever from the deletion of these words. Then, we will all know where we are.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like just to say "Thank you," but with qualifications. This reminds me of "Fairy gold." I was given a handsome present, or so I was told, from the hon. Gentleman, and lo and behold, the next moment it vanished into thin air; for the Assistant Postmaster-General told us that it made no difference whatever whether the words were in or were out.
What a curious Government and what a curious party. I suppose they put these words in by mistake, or perhaps they put them in on purpose. Perhaps they thought what they really did mean or they thought what they did not mean, or they did not think whether they meant anything—they just put them into the Bill. One would forgive the Government anything, even that, if they had not been so obstinate in this House and then seen the sudden light of reason in that most unlikely other place.
Gracious though the hon. Gentleman's mood was today, it would have assisted the functioning of this House a little more if he had been able to show a similar graciousness and common sense in dealing with Opposition Amendments in this House instead of having to wait until he got to another place to make what was obviously a sensible concession. I hope he will remember that printers have to work, that paper costs money, that economy is dear to the Tory Party and that he should not waste printers' time, printers' ink and valuable paper, so essential to the national effort, by putting down meaningless phrases in a Government Bill and then defending them when they are there.

Mr. Shackleton: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General answer the House on some of the questions that have been put to him? I realise that he regards the Amendment as a concession to the Opposition and I fully grant that, such as it is, it is a concession. But when it was made, certain rather important questions were raised, which turn on the policy of the Government with regard to the future of the B.B.C as well.
This matter was raised in another place. The question is whether the 10 years' period which is linked to "such longer period" is to be the period that will apply also to the B.B.C. That was the suggestion of the Postmaster-

General. In other words, will the Charter of the B.B.C. be extended until 1964 instead of running, as it is at present, to 1962? To that extent these words were of some importance in this Bill because this magical period of 10 years has rather a special significance. We know that it has always had great significance for the Home Secretary in the field of transport and so on, and we are glad to know that this is to be 10 years and not a more mysterious figure. However, we would like to hear more before we agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to know whether or not this indicates that there is to be a limitation on the contracts made with programme directors. Without this Amendment they might feel they were authorised to make a contract for a much longer period than 10 years. It does not look, on the face of it, as if this Amendment has any relation to contract making, but we would like an assurance.

Mr. Gammans: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that it does not affect contracts in the least. To reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), this Parliament cannot bind its successors in 10 years' time as to what they may do about the B.B.C. Charter, and it would be improper for me to suggest anything of the sort. The hon. Gentleman, of course, is fully aware of that fact. What I imagine they might be inclined to do would be to extend the B.B.C. Charter, but I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman answer my point? The Home Secretary stated during the debate that a comprehensive review of the whole broadcasting field would be undertaken, before 1962, yet the Assistant Postmaster-General has made it clear that he had no right to do that. Surely it would be the normal intention of Governments. Can we have confirmation that there has been no change in the Government attitude in regard to the undertaking given by the Home Secretary? Can I have an answer?

Clause 2.—(POWERS OF AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 30. leave out "and" and insert "or."

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Again, this is an Amendment that was sponsored by the Opposition in another place and is purely drafting. As the Bill was originally worded, under Clause 2 (2, b) the Authority could provide programmes itself if there was a temporary lack of suitable persons able and willing to become and continue as programme contractors on suitable terms and to perform their obligations. This Amendment could scarcely be simpler. By substituting "or" for "and," while making little difference to the meaning, it brings it out beyond any doubt that two alternatives are involved: first, the lack of people to become contractors and, secondly, the lack of people to continue as contractors. I do not imagine that anyone will have any objection to this slight clarification, which does not indicate any change of policy so far as the Bill is concerned.

Clause 3.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROGRAMMES AND PUBLICATIONS OF AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discuss the following related Amendment in page 6, line 3, to leave out from "that" to end of line 4 and to insert:
proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance;

Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order. As I understand it, Amendments to a Lords Amendment must be moved before we deal with the Lords Amendment. Can the position be safeguarded in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should take, with this Amendment to leave out paragraph (a), the following Amendment to page 6, to which there are a number of

Amendments to be moved by my hon. Friends? It is all right if it is only a matter of discussion, but it must not preclude our moving our Amendments later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It is quite safe because the hon. Member has moved to agree with the Lords in the first Amendment to page 5, line 35. I shall safeguard the position

Mr. Gammans: I was only suggesting that we should discuss with this Amendment the second Amendment, and I had only moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords" in the first Amendment. The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that the tone and style of the programmes should no longer be predominantly British, as we originally suggested, but it would require that proper proportions of live and recorded matter should be British both in origin and in performance. It is clear from the Amendments—

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sorry, but I am confused as to what is happening. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Amendment to page 5, line 35, but he is proceeding to refer to, and to discuss, the next Amendment in page 6, line 3, to which there are some Amendments down from this House. I do not know whether they have been or will be selected but, if they are, may I inquire how can preserve our right to move those Amendments and how the hon. Gentleman can discuss that Lords Amendment with the one he has moved?

Mr. Gammans: The last thing I want to do is so to conduct this debate as to preclude such Amendments as the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to discuss. If it would be desirable for me formally to move this Amendment, I shall be happy to do so.

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order. The Assistant Postmaster-General, a moment or two ago, was referring to what purported to be a Lords Amendment to page 6, line 3. He used the words "live and recorded." I cannot find on the Amendment paper any reference to the word "live." Is the hon. Gentleman referring to another Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know where he found the words. I gathered


that what the Assistant Postmaster-General wished to do was to agree with the Lords in their Amendment to page 5, line 35, and, with it, to discuss the one at page 6.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I do not imagine that anyone is likely to wish to preserve paragraph (a), though possibly they might say a word or two in threnody. In those circumstances, would it not be simpler to deal first with the Amendment to page 5?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be simpler from my point of view if the Assistant Postmaster-General deals first with the one to page 5, and then we can go on to the one at page 6 to which there are three Amendments down.

Mr. Gammans: That would be satisfactory from my point of view, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I need hardly say more about this Amendment although I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) suggested that I had read out incorrectly the Amendment in page 6. The exact
words should be:
proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance;

Mr. C. R. Hobson: On a point of order. I submit for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is necessary according to the rules of order to deal with this Amendment before we proceed to the discussion of the next Lords Amendment and our Amendments to it. The Assistant Postmaster-General is not doing that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite usual to discuss a number of Amendments together, but they can only be accepted or rejected when they are reached. It might be simpler, if the House agrees, to deal with the one in page 5 and then we can take the one in page 6 afterwards.

Mr. Shackleton: Perhaps we may now be told by the Assistant Postmaster-General why this House should agree with the Lords? He has confused us, and we do not blame him, because it is a little difficult as there are these other Amendments coming on. But we should like to

know why this paragraph, to which the Government attached such importance, should now be removed from the Bill. I hope that I am discussing the right Amendment. I understand that we are now discussing the Amendment to leave out the words:
that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British.
We realise, of course, that it was a ludicrous and barbarous sort of proposition which only a Philistine Government would put into the Bill. This is the consequence of their foolish action in introducing this Bill at all.
They attached a great importance to this paragraph and we should like to know why they should now drop it. It may be perhaps that a more civilised atmosphere predominates in their party in another place and that that has had some influence on the Government. But we should like from the hon. Gentleman an explanation of this civilising influence.

Mr. Mitchison: I cannot let paragraph (a) depart without a bitter word or two. It always was statutory nonsense of the most exalted character. It never meant anything, it was incapable of having any sensible meaning, and I fail to understand why the Government ever put it into the Bill, or what they thought they meant by it.
The paragraph contains the words:
that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British.
That, of course, has nothing to do with
a proper proportion …of British origin"—
and the rest of it, which comes somewhere else in the Clause. This was one of the great safeguards inserted into the Bill, and I still do not know how the Government proposed to apply it to the ordinary substance of a programme.
I suppose that in his other capacity the Home Secretary has definitely given up the attempt to naturalise Richard Wagner and perhaps Bach and Schumann and other composers whose works are frequently played in programmes. We have never yet understood whether the tone and style would be predominantly British when a British pianist was playing the works of a foreign composer, or when


a foreign pianist was playing the works of a British composer.
We never understood what would happen if we had a horse race in England run entirely by French horses, or whether a French winner would suffice to change the character of the programme into something predominantly French. We do not understand at all what kind of thing anybody had in mind in proposing this piece of meaningless nonsense in the middle of the Bill, stressing an essential and valuable safeguard for the national character. It is the kind of thing that nobody who sat down to consider what he was thinking about could conceivably have thought of and written down—let alone put into an Act of Parliament.
I cannot let pass this sublime effort of statutory muddle, statutory nonsense, statutory confusion and statutory everything else that it ought not to be, without saying that I never welcomed it, I never loved it, I never understood it and I should like—were it a Parliamentary expression—to say that on its departure I give it a kick in the pants.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Ought not the Assistant Postmaster-General again to explain what was meant by the Government? Can he answer one simple question and say whether Mr. Auden, an Englishman living in America, or Mr. Eliot, an American living in England, is a more predominantly British poet in tone and style? Can the hon. Gentleman answer one question about this fantastic paragraph?

5.15 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 3, to leave out from "that" to end of line 4, and insert:
proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Lords Amendment must be divided. There is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to the second half of the Amendment, which proposes to insert words. The House must, therefore, first leave out from "that" to the end of line 4.
Lords Amendment divided.
So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out from "that" to end of line 4, agreed to.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words proposed to be inserted by the Lords, to leave out "proper proportions," and to insert, "at least four-fifths" instead thereof.
I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and other of my hon. Friends whose names are attached to it. I should make it clear at the beginning that there is a vested interest behind this Amendment. I do not think anybody should express any moral indignation about that, because there is nothing but vested interests behind this Bill—the interests of advertisers and others who wish to use this instrument to make as much money as they can. Therefore, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have expressed the point of view of those interests, will have no objection to my expressing the point of view of other interests as well.
The film producers and workers of this country have been through many years of varying vicissitudes and they are concerned that if the Bill goes through in its present form, containing the words "proper proportions," they will be subjected to fierce and unfair competition particularly on the part of American television film manufacturers who have so vast a market at home that they are in a position to dump on these shores programmes which, very largely, have completed their purpose in the United States; have met their manufacturing costs; have achieved their profit, and may be sold here at such comparatively cheap rates as to make it quite impossible for the film producing companies and film workers in this country to produce the sort of British films we require at economic rates.
I do not think it would be wrong of me—I do not wish to discuss live performances at this stage, though there are certain words in this Amendment from another place which I do not like—to express a point of view. I do not agree with the sort of xenophobia which is creeping into this business. I do not like references to "programmes of British


origin" and "British performances." I think that we are going too far. Art is international and that is something which we should recognise—although I do not use the word "art" as applied to commercial television. I wish to make it quite clear that they are two entirely separate things.
I hope that when the Authority and the programme companies come to work, they will not see to it that foreign artists are excluded from a proportion of the programme. Indeed, I hope that whatever Government be in power they exercise towards foreign artists and producers that hospitality which is so much a part of our creditable history, and which has contributed so much to the high artistic and cultural standards existing in this country today. But that is by the way.
As the Lords Amendment stands at the moment, who is to decide what is the proper proportion? Of course, only one person can decide, and that is the advertiser. If the Bill goes through in this form, he will decide what is the proper proportion in relation to whether the programme satisfies him as an advertising medium.
I am sure that the House is getting tired of constantly hearing the phrase that the purpose of the programme is to create the climate for the commercial. But that phrase is not mine it was used by a prominent commercial television man. That being so, the proper proportion of these films to be made in this country will be decided ultimately not by the Independent Television Authority but by the advertiser. If the advertiser goes to the I.T.A. and says, "I have been hamstrung because you will not let me have the sort of programmes I want in this country" there is always the danger that the I.T.A. will say that from its point of view some sort of reasonable and sensible attitude should be adopted towards the advertiser, but that may not be a good attitude as far as the viewer is concerned.
It is advisable, therefore, that the proportion should be specific in the form suggested in the Amendment. People like the Screen Writers' Guild, who are most highly skilled technicians, are eager that we should be absolutely specific and that we should say how much of this programme material should be British.

The Assistant Postmaster-General has expressed his hope that Great Britain should become the Hollywood of commercial television films. God forbid that that should happen. I should not like the London film industry to sink to the depths of the Hollywood industry. If the hon. Member is sincere and wants to see London as a great film centre the thing to do is to support our Amendment. If 80 per cent. of the television films were to be made in this country the Bill would give a genuine fillip to the television film industry here.
Hollywood has its eyes on London. It will not allow London to become a real rival without putting up a fight. This is not the time to hamper the industry but the time to help it. Mr. Samuel Goldwyn, who, from time to time, makes shrewd remarks about the film industry and who, possibly, knows the industry better than anyone else, has said, "The movies and T.V. have now settled their tiff. They are now going steady." That means that the section of the industry in Hollywood which makes television films and that section which makes what is called entertainment films—and I hope that hon. Members note the subtle difference between them—have now decided to amalgamate and go steady.
The first effect of that is that this year Hollywood is to make 600 hours of entertainment pictures and 3,000 hours of television films. It will make five hours of television films for every hour of entertainment films because the people there know that they have a potential market in this country. They are able to read the provisions of this Bill perhaps better than we can and they see that if we say that "proper proportions" of the films are to be British made and are so indefinite about it there is an opportunity for them.
Any hon. Member who has experience of advertising or of advertising agency work or of working for a newspaper in trying to induce advertisers to buy space knows that if one has such an indefinite phrase as "proper proportions" one can do anything one likes. Although the I.T.A., at the beginning, may have nothing but good intentions, when the Authority comes up against advertisers and their agents it may well be softened up to regard "proper proportions" as meaning miserable proportions. I want


to ensure that there will be an overwhelming proportion of British films. I want to see a growing and thriving television film industry in this country and it is for those reasons that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment.
Once again, here we have an instance of the financial interests of the programme contractors and the advertisers conflicting with the interests of the public and of viewers. It is in the interest of the programme contractors and the advertisers to see a very high proportion of recorded programmes and films being imported from the United States. One has only to study the possible figures for half an hour's broadcast of the commercial network to see that that is so. One might well have a situation in which to put on a play of British origin, live with British performers might easily cost £1,000 or more. To import it recorded from the United States might cost £50 or less.
If one puts oneself in the position of a programme contractor who is receiving £500 from the advertiser for his commercial, one sees that the financial incentive to him to spend only £50 in filling up half an hour instead of spending £1,000 on a live British programme is very great, though he might well have half the audience for the canned film that he would have for a good, live, British play. The economics are that it will pay over and over again to run a bad canned programme, and I am not in favour of making this country a kind of refuse bin for the American television industry.
Hon. Members may say that the I.T.A. will prevent that. I agree that if a public service body were not involved and pure commercial interests ran, matters would be a great deal worse, but we cannot expect programme contractors not to consider profitability. One cannot, on the one hand, favour private enterprise in this medium on the grounds that the profit motive leads to enterprise and initiative and, on the other hand, not expect those concerned to pursue that profit when we set them up in business. The net result of setting them up in business will be the strongest possible incentive to bring

in canned programmes and keep live British programmes out.
Our Amendment strengthens the hands of the I.T.A. in dealing with the programme contractors. I know that the programme contractors will say that it does not pay to put on live British programmes, in the same way as they said that it does not pay to have competition between programme contractors. The Government immediately abandoned competition. They also said that it does not pay to have regional programmes, and, in the same way, the Government abandoned that proposal. Now we shall have the programme contractors saying that it does not pay to have British programmes on television in this country and today, aware of the economics of the situation, the Government are opening the way for full-scale importation of canned American programmes.
5.30 p.m.
These programmes will be used because they are the cheap ones. I am told that the first six months of commercial television programmes for this country are already in the vaults of Messrs. J. Walter Thompson and Company in London. I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) will be here later to deny that. Perhaps it is a little exaggerated, but it applies to a very large proportion of the programmes. They are already canned, they have been shown to American audiences and they are hiding in the vaults of that largely American controlled advertising concern in London.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am disappointed that the Government have abandoned the provision that programmes should be predominantly British in tone and style. I shall do them the justice of saying that I do not think they are deleting the words because they do not want the programmes to be predominantly British in tone and style, but because they know that the provision is quite unenforceable. In any case the financial and commercial motivation behind these programmes will be American. It is useless to put pious wishes into legislation. We know that the origin of the idea was American; we know that the programmes we shall get if we are not careful will be American; we know that the motive forces behind the whole thing are American and that American capital is trying to enter the field. At least we can,


by this Amendment to the Lords Amendment, tie down the I.T.A. to providing an 80 per cent. quota of programmes of British origin and performance.
Who are the pioneers in commercial broadcasting? They are America, Radio Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal, Monaco and Andorra. We are now being asked to tread in the footsteps of those countries. It has always been a disappointment to me that the Minister has never visited Luxembourg and studied at first hand some of the procedure which they have instituted, He would get a great welcome if he went, as he would in Monaco and Andorra. I hope that the Government will see their way to doing something specific about the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, so that we can at least save something from the wreck and ensure that four-fifths of the programmes will be of British origin and performance.
The fact that these programmes will have to be of British origin and performance will not mean that they will be British in tone and style. Companies are already working here to produce programmes with American capital and personalities. Douglas Fairbanks is the most active man in this field. They are producing television film programmes which are British in origin and performance yet wholly American in tone and style. The Government ought to look particularly carefully at our proposal. I am sorry that we have abandoned the provision insisting on programmes being British in tone and style, but if our proposal is accepted we can at least ensure that 80 per cent. will be British in origin and performance. They will, of course, still be produced by American-financed companies, and they will be American in tone and style intended not for the British but the American market.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Of all the stupid Amendments which have been put forward by the Opposition during the progress of this Bill, this series plumbs the depths. There is a whole number of unparliamentary phrases which I could use to describe them, but if I did so I should be immediately ruled out of order, so I shall refrain. First, we must bear in mind that the sanction which hon. Members opposite propose to impose upon the new

Authority has no counterpart in the B.B.C. The B.B.C. can broadcast programmes which are wholly American, or of any other national complexion, if it so desires. But such is the impact of public opinion that the B.B.C. is not able to do so. It finds that it must broadcast programmes which are mainly British in content. There is no reason to suppose that any commercial authority would be able to get away with any standards lower than the B.B.C., in the face of British public opinion.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognises that the B.B.C. would have no incentive to broadcast Americanised programmes, because it would not have to pick its programmes with a view to ensuring its income. But that is the whole point in connection with the I.T.A., who will have to ensure its income.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The answer is that what the B.B.C. seeks to do is to please the greatest proportion of British listeners and viewers. It is not concerned with other matters. If advertisers use this medium to sell their goods their primary object will be to broadcast programmes which will encourage people to look at them. If they broadcast programmes which are so foreign and alien to the British point of view that they do not encourage the British public to look at them they will never succeed in selling their goods. That is an obvious point.
This series of Amendments, however, falls down not because of that but because of what occurred in the cinematograph industry in recent years, when a similar quota was imposed upon it. The imposition of a quota in the case of that industry brought about the production of the kind of film which put the British film industry in jeopardy, and it took many years to lift itself out of the mess. If we now impose upon this new Authority the requirement that four-fifths of the programmes which are broadcast must have been produced within this country and performed solely by British artistes, we shall do the very thing which we do not want to do. We shall produce programmes which are mediocre in quality, because at the present time there is not a sufficient number of artistes of the requisite quality in every


sphere of artistic and theatrical life to provide enough programmes to satisfy not only the requirements of the B.B.C. but the new Authority.
I should be the first to admit that the words "proper proportion" are not very satisfactory, but I believe that it is better to be indefinite in this matter. It is sufficient if this House expresses the view that there should be as high a proportion of British artistes as possible; we ought not to impose upon the I.T.A. a quota of 80 per cent. which it cannot in any circumstances carry out without offering programmes which are poor in quality.
There are very many ways in which we can help the theatrical profession to reach the standards required to carry out this object, and in the next Session we may have an opportunity of doing something about it. I beg hon. Members opposite to remember the history of the film industry in pre-war years and to remember the awful straits to which it was reduced as a consequence of having a quota imposed upon it. We do not want to reduce the new I.T.A. to the same position.

Mr. Hobson: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) and I thought that his analogy with the B.B.C. was quite fair. The one thing he failed to recognise, however, was that in the last analysis the Postmaster-General has complete control over the B.B.C. If there were a tendency on the part of the B.B.C. to broadcast nothing but foreign programmes, or programmes which originated abroad, it would be possible for him to intervene.
I would also question the hon. and gallant Member's argument that there will not be sufficient good short films available if this quota is imposed. I should have thought it was one of the cardinal doctrines of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the law of supply and demand would operate to enable the British to provide short films and our Amendment seems to me to give the answer of the requisite incentive for the provision of short films.
I do not pretend to know much about the film industry, but I know that most of the short films I have seen of British origin have been excellent productions.

I think that in our Amendment to the Lords Amendment it is fair to stipulate that four-fifths of the programme should be British is fair and reasonable. Let us look at it arithmetically for a moment. Four-fifths of 60 minutes works out of 48 minutes, and that seems to be a reasonable proportion.
But what is a "proper proportion"? I should like one of the hon. Members with legal knowledge to define it. I suggest it would be the correct meaning of the English language for one minute out of 60 minutes to be a proper proportion. After all, as long as the deviser multiplied by the quotient is equal to the sum to be divided that would be a proper proportion. I think that is perfectly satisfactory. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who used to be a schoolmaster, is smiling. Nevertheless, I am convinced that that would be a proper proportion.
We are told at the moment that quite a number of short films are being produced by British capital in Holland for reasons which it would not be germane, relevant or in order for me to go into. These films are produced by British capital but are they to be classed as being within the meaning of "predominantly British" or "proper proportions." To these points we need answers. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that the phrase should be "predominantly British," but now we are seeking to put the matter on an arithmetical basis I think 48 minutes out of one hour's programme is reasonable, fair and just. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, when he replies, will be able to tell us that he has accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Benn: From what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader Cooper), I did get a glimpse for the first time of what really lies behind the opposition to this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member and his friends, who represent what I suppose one must call a proper proportion of the party opposite, although some of us would rather call them a vulgar fraction, have made us realise that commercial television is not going to be concerned so much with British programmes, but that the programme contractor will bring in cheap programmes from the United States which


have already earned their keep, as my hon. Friends have said, on the other side of the Atlantic and are brought over here to keep British commercial television going.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Does the hon. Gentleman mean the George Raft films?

Mr. Benn: I hope the hon. Member will not jump too far ahead, because I am coming on to what I regard as the proper and the improper form of nationalism that is sure to be advanced from this side of the House. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude my initial point which is, of course, that American programmes will come here for public entertainment in order to keep commercial television going at any rate in its early stages. That candid admission is an interesting one, particularly to one like myself who never concealed his desire for some form of alternative television programme. But it is very different from the original proposal, which was that the B.B.C. should not have a monopoly in television.
The Lord Chancellor quoted Milton when this Bill was being debated in another place, and we were all stirred by early memories of the British tradition of liberty and so on, but he finished up by talking about some commercial programmes put out in the United States and then brought over here in order to make up time on commercial television. We have given a good many things to the United States, including the Pilgrim Fathers and a constitution that is based on a misunderstanding of our own constitution. I should be very sorry indeed if the greatest contribution in return that came to us from the United States was J. Walter Thompson and his associates in order to provide the innocent British public with competition against B.B.C. television.
The reason why we have never proposed such a similar scheme or a similar role for the B.B.C. is that the B.B.C. programme planners are doing one thing the programme contractors can never do. They pick the programme simply on its merits and for no other reason.

Squadron Leader Cooper: That is the point. The B.B.C. pick these programmes—

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member cannot debate this matter. He can only speak once.

Mr. Benn: When I heard you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, saying that the hon. and gallant Member could not debate the matter, I was reminded—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I meant that this is not like a Committee stage, and an hon. Member cannot speak more than once.

Mr. Benn: I was about to say that your Ruling reminded me of a colonel who separated two privates and said, "We will not have fighting in this regiment."
It is certainly true that the B.B.C. programme planners, when they consider a programme, consider it on its merits. They, of course, consider the listening figures. That inevitably affects them, because as people who have to provide a public service they are bound to look at the programmes to see whether they are popular or not. Basically, the only thing that they have in mind is whether they think the programme is a good one or not.
That leads me to the question of what I would regard as proper as against improper. I do not share the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) against American programmes. I do not have a general distaste of American programmes. My own view is that the Americans have an immense amount to offer us. I do not know whether there are other hon. Members who are as pleased as I am at the way the Americans have given a new fillip to folk music. The Library at Congress has played an important part in this and has enabled people to go all over this country and to Europe to study folk music, making it attractive to the ordinary listeners.
I like some American programmes, and I want to see some of those programmes over here. If I had my way, I would link up the Russians with this new Eurovision—a hideous word—and I would also bring plenty of American programmes over to the British public to everyone's benefit. But what we do not want is American programmes that are brought here, not because of the intrinsic merits of the programme, but


because it is an economic necessity to provide cheap products in order that the programme contractor can arrange his programmes to have a plug at the beginning and at the end.
In one of the earlier debates on this question I referred to an extract from the Luxembourg station regulations, and I hope I will be forgiven if I refer to it again. The regulations say that advertisers are asked not to look on the programme as an unpleasant necessity in order to get their advertising in, but to try and think of the programme as having some merit in it. That is an exaggeration perhaps, but in any case Radio Luxembourg was dealing mainly with advertisers who did not regard the programme as something having merit in itself but as something in which they could have their advertising plug at the beginning and at the end. The attitude of the programme contractors is that they are providing an opportunity by means of these programmes for a plug at the beginning and the end.
This is my last word. I am against the importation of cheap American goods, but most of the Amendments which we have had before us have shown the difference between the high ideals of the Conservative Party which suddenly, without a mandate, discovered its soul and advocated the necessity for some competitive television service, and the rather sordid commercial details which we have had to go into.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that that is the hon. Gentleman's last word because he is now out of order.

Mr. Benn: I hope that you will not think it out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to refer to this Amendment as one dealing with a sordid commercial matter. I believe that when we come to the question of what proportion is to be British and what is to be foreign that must be regarded as a commercial detail, and in my humble judgment it is an exceptionally sordid one. It is when we come up against the realities of commercial television that we are able to forget the high ideals which are supposed to be behind it. I hope that the House will support us in our Amendment.

Mr. Houghton: The merit of our Amendment to the Lords Amendment is that it would make definite what is other-

wise an indefinite provision. Most of Clause 3 is guff. If we were discussing an Authority which was independent in the sense that the B.B.C. is independent, we should not need to be discussing this Clause at all. The Amendment to the Amendment seeks to give some arithmetical proportion to something which otherwise is to be a "proper proportion." I notice in the Lords Amendment that what began as a "proper proportion" has now become "proper proportions." Why the change from the singular to the plural, I do not know. I do not see the need for the change, but that is an unimportant point.
We want to lay down a specific proportion. I notice that in subsection (1, f) a proper proportion has become a "suitable proportion." Why the proportion should be proper for one purpose and suitable for another, I do not profess to know. Another example of the kind of thing which we are trying to correct is the reference to "due impartiality." What is undue impartiality? Here again one sees how ridiculous the whole Clause is, yet because we are dealing with a wolf in this Bill it has to be given sheep's clothing. That is what Clause 3 tries to do.
We would prefer not to have to deal with this kind of definition at all, but we could be in that position only if we were dealing with a quite different Independent Television Authority. These safeguards, one of which we are trying to make more specific by our Amendment, serve to show what dangers there are and how important it is to guard against them. Evidently the Government felt that without these safeguards there would be such uneasiness among the public about what might be the consequences of the setting up of commercial television that they would be opposed to it in principle.
Even though something more specific has come to the otherwise indefinite provision about proper proportions, there will still be difficulty in deciding what is "British origin" and what is "British performance." They are matters not specifically related to the Amendment, though at some time someone might tell us whether Vic Oliver is of British origin or British performance, he having been born in Austria. All these difficulties of interpretation make the whole matter manifestly ridiculous.
This safeguard against the importation of undesirable canned programmes from the United States is probably one of the most important provisions in the Clause. We cannot see whether the Assistant Postmaster-General really wants to give the Authority something on which it can work or whether it, in common with everybody else, is to be left in the air to decide whether a proportion is proper or not.
What court of law will ever be asked to decide whether the Authority has satisfied the provisions of this subsection? How is a court to interpret it? We all know that under the Rent Acts the courts have had different opinions about the meaning of the word "substantial." Nobody has ever been satisfied about the meaning of the word or about the numerous interpretations put upon it.
The provisions would have been more satisfactory if much more specific and detailed directives had been given to the Authority. They would have been just as effective. This law cannot be enforced. As far as I know, we shall not imprison members of the Authority if the Authority fails to comply with the law. There is nothing in the Bill about penalties. There will not be a fine of £500 or the option of three months' imprisonment. The members can merely be removed, and they can be removed without a lot of the guff that is in this subsection.
This merely shows that in the final stages of the Bill we are continuing to discuss many of the illusory aspects of the question, but in this respect we want to make more specific what otherwise is a meaningless phrase, "proper proportions."

Mr. Gammans: I should like first to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who unfortunately is not present now. He made what I thought was a very thoughtful speech in favour of what I might call sane internationalism. I am not sure whether he was in favour of trying to deal with the matter by quotas or not. If he was, I find it rather difficult to reconcile those two points of view.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) is not here, because I must correct one statement which he made. I may be wrong, but I understood him to say that if the B.B.C. were

to put on too many American programmes the Postmaster-General would have the power and the duty to interfere. That is not so. The B.B.C. is completely independent with regard to its programmes. We have discussed this question before. I make no apology for referring to it again. It is important.
What we are really discussing is whether there should be some quota arrangement or whether the whole questions of the type of programme to be shown should be left to the discretion of an independent body called the Authority. I am assuming also that both sides approach the question with the same two objectives.
Our first objective is to safeguard British artistes, producers and technicians from the risk of dumping. That is a risk. Let us face it. We all know that there are many programmes in the United States especially which have earned their keep in that country and which can be dumped here very cheaply. We know that. It is a matter we have always faced from the beginning. Together with that objective we have another one, and that is to avoid a narrow nationalism which will impair the value of programmes which will be shown in this country and which will deny to viewers the chance of seeing programmes which, frankly, I think they ought to see.
6.0 p.m.
Those are our two objectives. I believe that the objectives of the Opposition are the same as ours. What we have to do is to see whether we can marry up the two objectives and find a way out of the difficulties that face us. We must surely start off by saying that we can never accept any idea that the British market should be virtually a closed shop for British artistes, producers and technicians. I believe that that will be the view of hon. Members opposite. It would certainly be bad for viewers, and I believe it would be bad for the artistes in the long run. The B.B.C. has never taken the attitude that this country should be a closed shop for British artistes and technicians. To give an example, on television we have "Café Continentale," consisting entirely of foreign artistes, which, in my opinion, is a first-class show.

Mr. Shackleton: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the right


Amendment. I understood that we were concerned only with recorded programmes on this Amendment.

Mr. Gammans: That type of programme could well be recorded.

Mr. Shackleton: But it is not.

Mr. Gammans: We are talking about the quota system generally.

Mr. Shackleton: No, about recorded programmes.

Mr. Gammans: The point I want to make is that whether we are talking about recorded or live programmes, the argument remains the same, that the B.B.C. has never tied itself down to a narrow nationalism. To give an example of recorded programmes, on Saturday night I saw one of a series of gangster films from America. In this film two people were neatly murdered and a girl was nearly throttled, but in the end virtue, in the person of Mr. George Raft, triumphed. I thought it quite a good film. Our problem is to give reasonable protection to British performers but at the same time not to be ridiculously nationalistic about it.
The point on which the two sides of the House differ—this is really what we are discussing is how the two objectives, to which we all agree, can be effected. We do not disagree on what we want to do; we disagree on the method. The Government feel that it is best done by leaving the whole matter to a responsible Authority, giving the Authority a general directive, and that is what we propose to do.
Hon. Members opposite ask me what is the meaning of a "proper proportion." The answer is, of course, what a responsible Authority regards as a proper proportion. An hon. Member opposite talked about the Authority being carted off to court. I do not think that he could have appreciated that this is not a matter which would result in anyone being carted off to court. Nor would we wish that to happen.
We object to the quota system not because we believe that the quota system is in itself bad but because we have decided, after careful consideration, that the method that we have proposed is better. I ask the House to accept that we have gone into the matter in very great

detail and have seen an enormous number of people about it. We are convinced that in the long run any attempt to apply a quota system would defeat the object that we have in view.
I will briefly summarise my objections. The first is that we should certainly have to apply any quota system to the B.B.C. as well as to the I.T.A. Up till now the B.B.C. has got along very well without a quota system.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Has the hon. Gentleman made any study of the actual proportion of recorded foreign material put out by the B.B.C.?

Mr. Gammans: Of course I have.

Mr. Thomson: Is it more than 50 per cent.?

Mr. Gammans: Much of it depends upon what one regards as the definition of "British," and it also depends upon the recorded matter. I do not know that there is an objection to the B.B.C.'s performances. Certainly, I have heard no objections raised to them. The important point is we must be careful about this —that if we applied the quota system to the I.T.A. it would certainly have to be applied to the B.B.C.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give his reasons for that extraordinary statement? Why should it have to be applied to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Gammans: We are dealing here with public bodies—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Different sorts of public bodies.

Mr. Gammans: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman may hold that view, but I regard them as two comparable public bodies, and if we applied a quota system to one we should certainly have to apply it to the other.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman say that that applies to all the other restrictions in the Bill? Are all the other restrictions applied to the I.T.A. also to be applied to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Gammans: No, of course not. We are here dealing with the specific point of recorded programmes. It would be unreasonable to apply this provision to the I.T.A. if we did not apply it also to the B.B.C.
My second objection to a quota system is that it could easily be evaded. We should have to define minutely—here we come on to a further Amendment on which I will not trespass now—what we mean by British origin and British performance instead of leaving the definition to the good sense of a responsible body. Under the film quota scheme there is a regulation which allows film distributors to use foreign films if they can show that no suitable British films are available. I do not know whether there are many in the House who honestly believe that the quota system has worked very satisfactorily.
My third objection to the quota system is that we should be asking for retaliation. As television is spreading all over the world, any attempt to fix a quota system here would at any rate invite retaliation from other countries. We are convinced that the flexible system which we suggest in the Bill will do the job better than any other method. I hope the House will accept it. If we could have been convinced as a result of our investigations that a quota system would do the job better than the more flexible system which we have proposed, we should have accepted it. There would have been no earthly reason for our not doing so. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) spoke about Great Britain becoming a refuse bin for American films. I believe that that was pardonable exaggeration in a debate of this nature.

Mr. Mitchison: I have been listening and wondering whether the hon. Gentleman would give us any idea whatever of what "proper proportion" means. I wonder whether he could do that. Will he at the same time bear in mind that the most flexible phrase of all is the utterly meaningless phrase?

Mr. Gammans: I thought I had dealt with that point when I said that a proper proportion is what a responsible Authority regards as a proper proportion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does the hon. Gentleman think it is?"] I am not the Authority. It is not for me to consider all the facets of the Bill. As I have already said in this House, I believe that anything in the nature of quotas is undesirable.
I do not mind repeating what I said in Committee, that I have very great hopes that this country will build up a great and expanding export industry. The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) seemed to think that we could not do that. With the B.B.C. making programmes and the I.T.A. responsible for programmes, I cannot see any reason why this country should not become a springboard from which we can leap into the markets abroad. I heard a report on the television service the other night from a U.N.E.S.C.O. commentator who said that even now television covers an audience of more than 100 million and that in two years' time 57 countries will have started a television service.
I regard this as a wonderful opportunity, and I am not so pessimistic as to assume, like hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this recording or film industry of ours needs artificial protection in the home market before being able to hold its own, either in the market here or in markets beyond the seas. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. H. Morrison: This becomes funnier as we go along, and more and more inconclusive. The Assistant Postmaster-General says that a proper proportion means what is a proper proportion to the Independent Television Authority. We then ask him what he thinks a proper proportion is, and he says," I am not the Authority, and I do not know," or" I am not going to tell you." Surely, this is a quaint way in which to pass legislation?
Here are the Government asking us to pass a Bill which says that a proper proportion shall be British. They must have some reasons for putting in that provision, and they must have some ideas as to what a proper proportion is. We are not asking them to be unnecessarily precise and exact, but surely the Government have ideas? They must have had talks about it and have considered it. Is it really impossible for the Assistant Postmaster-General to say what he and the Government think is a proper proportion? I will readily give way if the hon. Gentleman would like to attempt the task.
I should have thought that the Government would have had something in their heads. I know that that is an assumption,


but they ought to have something in their heads when they come here and ask us to pass this legislation. We are entitled to know what they mean by it. They may not know what the words mean; I do not know myself, but we ought at least to know what is in their minds. Will not the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us roughly and in a general way what the Government really mean by and have in mind concerning the words" proper proportion"? I will gladly give way if he wishes to do so.
The other thing, of course, would be to tell us what is an improper proportion; that also would be interesting. I dare not sit down and give way for the Assistant Postmaster-General now, because Mr. Speaker might call the next speaker or put the Question. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated once more that he does not understand the Bill and ought not to be in charge of it, and the sooner he joins on holiday the former Minister of Agriculture the better it will be. That is what he really deserves in the light of this experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said that this is a curious Clause altogether. Let us see what the Authority has to do. I think the Assistant Postmaster-General should say what is in his mind about the meaning of "proper proportion," because I do not know what the law courts will think about it, or what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) might have to say on the subject. I should think the law courts will have an awful job. Indeed, it may be impossible for the courts to adjudicate upon it, and it may be that that is the purpose of the Government in drafting this Clause.
If it is the case that the Assistant Postmaster-General does not know what is meant by "proper proportion" and has no idea about the purpose of a Bill which he cannot defend, propound or explain, that is bad enough, but if he has deliberately and with malice aforethought brought a Bill here which is deliberately designed so that it cannot be challenged in the courts of law, he ought to say so. It is all very well to do that with Defence Regulation 18B and things like that in war-time, but it is not good enough here. I do not see how the courts are to interpret it, but I am not a lawyer, and that

is why I appealed to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering.
6.15 p.m.
In Clause 3 (1), at the beginning, it is provided—
It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible,
the broadcasts shall have these various qualifications which are set out in the paragraphs that follow. So it starts off by saying "as far as possible." Then, the Lords Amendment makes it a "proper proportion," and we really do not know what that means. This is not the proper way in which to pass legislation.
It is said, and it is perfectly true, that we all wish reasonably to protect British artistes and others against dumping, and we also wish to avoid a narrow and inconsiderate nationalism. We have seen some good things from the United States, and the other day I saw some good things from Moscow—the puppets from the Central Theatre—a very clever piece of work. That is all right, but we must protect ourselves not only against an excessive amount but also against the wrong kind.
The Assistant Postmaster-General says that the B.B.C. has never taken the attitude which we are taking this afternoon. My impression of the B.B.C. is that it is, in practice, within the limits of our Amendment. It is said that if we do this in the case of the I.T.A. we ought to lay down a similar stipulation for the B.B.C. I do not think we need to do so. I think the practice of the B.B.C. is probably within these limits, but, in any case, the reason why we wish to put this stipulation in the Bill in the case of the I.T.A. is that the I.T.A. will be mixed up with commercial business, and commercial business will be tempted to use cheaper stuff from the United States, which might be good, bad or indifferent, but which has been economically exploited in that country before it came here.
Then, the Assistant Postmaster-General has also argued the extraordinary doctrine that if we stipulate this in the case of the I.T.A., we must do it for the B.B.C. My first answer to that is the one I have already given—that the I.T.A. will be


dealing with commercial programme companies, whereas the B.B.C. is a public authority dealing with a public service, and that, therefore, the circumstances are different. Even the hon. Gentleman himself would not propose to argue, surely, that if we apply these conditions to the B.B.C. we ought to apply all the conditions. I do not think he would. The whole series of conditions to be imposed on the I.T.A. and the programme companies is to be imposed precisely because this is commercial television, and even this Government, for all their capitalist pride, know that commercial concerns, commercial motives and considerations are not to be trusted without certain checks, whereas a public service organisation like the B.B.C. is to be trusted.
If the Assistant Postmaster-General is insistent that the B.B.C. must be treated on all fours with the I.T.A., why has he not put forward an Amendment to give the B.B.C. £750,000 a year out of public money, as he is doing for the I.T.A.? [Interruption.] Yes, out of public money. As a matter of fact it is the other way about. The Assistant Postmaster-General

takes money from the B.B.C. out of licence collections. It is money from licence fees, not Exchequer contributions, and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is this complete analogy, why does he not give the B.B.C. £750,000 a year out of the Exchequer for this purpose?

We think that the words in the Bill are meaningless, and that it is reasonable that we should stipulate something. Therefore we propose to insist on putting our Amendment to the vote. Particularly is this necessary in view of the apparently complete incapacity of the Assistant Postmaster-General to explain the words in the Bill and those which it is proposed to put in by means of the Amendment from Their Lordships' House. The situation, in the words of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir R. De la Bère), is entirely unsatisfactory.

Question put, "That 'proper proportions' stand part of so much of the Lords Amendment as proposed to insert words."

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 235.

Division No. 209.]
AYES
[6.21 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gammans, L. D.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.
Cole, Norman
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Arbuthnot, John
Colegate, W. A.
Glover, D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Godber, J. B.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gough, C. F. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Banks, Col. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Barlow, Sir John
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Batter, Sir Beverley
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hay, John


Birch, Nigel
Donner, Sir P. W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Black, C. W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, B. R.
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hollis, M. C.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Holt, A. F.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Horobin, I. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fell, A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bullard, D. G.
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Fort, R.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Carr, Robert
Foster, John
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H




Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Snadden, w. McN.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholls, Harmar
Soames, Capt. C.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Speir, R. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kerr, H. W.
Odey, G. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lambton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Storey, S.


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Studholme, H. G.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Page, R. G.
Summers, G. S.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Peake, Rt, Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Lindsay, Martin
Perkins, Sir Robert
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Linstead, Sir H N
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Teeling, W.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd, Rt. Han. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tilney, John


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Turton, R. H.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Profumo, J. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


McAdden, S. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ramsden, J. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Redmayoe, M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wall, Major Patrick


Macleod, Rt. Hon Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Manningham-Buller Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Roper, Sir Harold
Wellwood, W.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Marples, A. E.
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maude, Angus
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wills, G.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Scott, R. Donald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mellor, Sir John
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Molson, A. H. E.
Shepherd, William



Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moore, Sir Thomas
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Richard Thompson.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Carmichael, J.
Foot, M. M.


Adams, Richard
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Forman, J. C.


Albu, A. H.
Champion, A. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chapman, W. D.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Clunie, J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Glanville, James


Baird, J.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Balfour, A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Greenwood, Anthony


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bartley, P.
Daines, P.
Grey, C. F.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benson, G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Bowden, H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hastings, S.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hayman, F. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hobson, C. R.


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Holman, P.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fienburgh, W.
Holmes, Horace


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Houghton, Douglas







Hoy, J. H.
Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Moyle, A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, F. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Steele, T.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oldfield, W. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oswald, T
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Padley, W. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Parker, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parkin, B. T
Thornton, E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, J.
Timmons, J.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, A.
Tommy, F.


Keenan, W.
Peart, T. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Kenyon, C.
Plummet, Sir Leslie
Viant, S. P.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Warbey, W. N.


King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Lawson G. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Weitzman, D.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reeves, J.
West, D. G.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Reid, William (Camlaohie)
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


MacColl, J. E.
Richards, R.
Wigg, George


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancrat, N.)
Willey, F. T.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, William
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Manuel, A. C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mason, Roy
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Messer, Sir F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Monslow, G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)



Mortey, R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Wallace and Mr. J. T. Price.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Snow, J. W.



Question put, and agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words proposed to be inserted by the Lords, to leave out "and other."
I do not think that this Amendment to the Lords Amendment need take up much of the time of the House, in view of the discussion which we had on our previous Amendment, which covered very much the same field. This Amendment to the Amendment has a very much more limited effect. The result of the acceptance of the deletion of the words "and other" would be that the" proper proportions of British programme would be confined to recorded matter. We propose to delete from the Amendment which came from another place the requirement that "proper proportions" should apply both to recorded matter and to live programmes.
Now that our previous Amendment to the Lords Amendment has been defeated

and the words "proper proportions" are to be retained, it is extremely difficult for us to accept the definition given by the Assistant Postmaster-General of those words. In our view, it is quite impossible accurately to define their meaning, as the Assistant Postmaster-General has failed to do. He refused to give any indication of what he had in mind as to what the words meant. It seems to me to be far more difficult to determine what are
"proper proportions" in relation to live programmes than in relation to recorded programmes.
Recorded programmes are the greater danger. During the discussions on our previous Amendments to the Lords Amendment and in earlier debates, reference was frequently made to the very large number of recorded American programmes which are ready to be put on the air. This afternoon the Assistant Postmaster-General himself referred to the danger of dumping, and to the desire


to eliminate that danger. That is our main objective, and if our Amendment were agreed to, we could then reluctantly accept this vague term "proper proportions," simply because it is essential that recorded programmes should be limited.
The second reason I am moving this Amendment is that I am still worried about the danger, to use the words of the Assistant Postmaster-General, of "narrow nationalism." Once we start trying to determine the proportion of live programmes which should be of British origin and performed by British subjects, we face the grave danger of developing a restriction on those who are interested in art as an international culture, and enter a dangerous field in which we should not wish to wander long because it might have a serious effect on our own culture owing to the retaliation which we might suffer elsewhere.
This afternoon the Assistant Postmaster-General referred to the danger of retaliation in regard to what we term canned programmes. He said that if we fixed a known quota of recorded programmes, then a similar quota would be imposed upon us in other countries. I think it equally likely, or possibly even more likely, that if, in order to maintain a high proportion of British programmes performed by British subjects, we restricted foreign operas, ballets, puppet shows, and the like, from coming to this country, we should be faced with a similar restriction when our performers endeavour to go on tour abroad. It would be a sad day for America, the Commonwealth, and for some European countries if, because of our restriction on their performances and performers, they found it necessary to restrict, say, the Sadler's Wells Ballet from visiting them.
There is the difficulty of determining what is of British origin and what are British performers. In referring to this matter in another place, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, speaking of the performance of "The Ring," said:
Some proportion of that particular performance should be British."—[OFFICIAL
REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 188, c. 1194.]
In the first place, how can Wagner be British? Nothing is more Germanic than "The Ring." For instance, if the Vienna State Opera comes to Covent Garden with its full caste and its own orchestra, must we then insist that it does not bring

all its caste and all its orchestra because part of them must consist of British performers?
As soon as one goes into the matter one finds how impossible it is to determine what these words mean. Would their acceptance mean that Glyndebourne could not go on the air if its production were thought to include too large a proportion of foreign matter and because foreign artistes were included in its cast? The more one looks into this point as far as live programmes are concerned, the more difficult it appears to be.
With recorded matter it is different, because one knows where the recorded programmes originate, and, therefore, it is not nearly so difficult to deal with them. I suggest that by proposing to narrow the restrictions which it is intended to impose, while at the same time restrictions dumping, this Amendment would prevent our going too far in our xenophobia, too far in our narrow nationalism, of which, I believe, there is some danger.

Mr. George Darling: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has said, what we are discussing here is really the question of canned programmes. He said that if we tried to apply the provisions of the Lords Amendments now before us to all programmes that are televised, we should find ourselves in difficulties with regard to live programmes. I should imagine that both the viewers and all the other people engaged in the preparation of television programmes are united in not wanting their programmes to be imported in large measure from overseas. I think we are all agreed on that. With regard to the canned programmes to which there has been much reference in the debate, it is quite clear that viewers would complain if they had to look continually at cheap canned films from America. Programme staffs, actors and artistes over here would have grounds for complaint if they were put out of work by large importations of such matter.
With regard to live programmes, the case is different. For the time being at any rate— because we do not know what the future holds for the importation of live programmes from the Continent and elsewhere— live programmes would mainly be produced in this country. They


would give employment to studio staffs and technicians and to those taking part in the programme. We think that it would be quite wrong to say that all the actors and artistes taking part in the live programmes should be British. As the Assistant Postmaster-General himself has said in this debate, we want an intelligent internationalism in this matter. Therefore, whatever restrictions may be placed on the importation of programmes we believe that the restriction on imported material should apply only to completed programmes—to recorded material, to the films that come over— and not to live programmes produced here.
We think that our Amendment is very sensible and should be accepted so that it may be made quite clear that we are dealing only with recorded material, and do not want the restrictive provisions that must inevitably result from the form of words used by the Government. We do not want those restrictive provisions to apply to all the live programmes that we hope will go out to the viewers. As I say, this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is really most sensible, and I am sure that it will be accepted in good faith by the Government.

Mr. Gammans: I must confess that there does not seem to be very much cohesion about this in the Labour Party, because what we are discussing is an Amendment to an Amendment moved in the other place by the leader of the Labour Peers, Lord Jowitt. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I find it difficult to understand exactly why he wants to do this. We now seem to be going in the exactly opposite direction. In the previous Amendment, we were talking about the tightening up of recorded programmes; here we are talking about the loosening up of live programmes. I do not see any consistency between the two.
The hon. Gentleman said that he regarded recorded programmes as the greater danger. He may be right. They may be the greater danger to the well-being of British artistes—that we cannot say—but I would not like to feel that we had eliminated altogether from this Bill any directions to the Authority as to what should be its policy towards live performances. We have cut out of the Clause the words "British tone and style," but if this

Amendment is accepted there are no directions whatever given to the Authority about programmes which are non-recorded.

Mr. Driberg: Surely it is the Government who are eliminating all directions by insisting on retaining the vague words "proper proportion."

Mr. Gammans: No, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed me. If we are to eliminate the words "British tone and style" and are to give no direction about live programmes that is a serious defect, because the Authority will have no indication of the wishes of the House in regard to programmes which are not recorded. We cannot yet say what percentage shall be, or will be, recorded, but I think that, on further reflection, the House will agree that it would be a very great mistake that now we have eliminated the words "British tone and style," the Authority should start off without any directions whatsoever as to what should be its policy in regard to live programmes. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Benn: We are somewhat handicapped in considering this Amendment by the fact that the words to which we propose an amendment:
proper proportions of the recorded and other matter…
are very largely meaningless, or can be interpreted in a variety of ways. One reading of the Lords Amendment which we are now considering is that when the Lords use those words they might mean proper proportions of recorded and proper proportions of other matter—that it is to be interpreted separately. Whether that is meant or not, it is certainly pleasing to me that my hon. Friends should have joined in putting down this Amendment to the Lords Amendment, because it enables us to make absolutely clear our view on the importation of foreign programmes and the mixing in the programmes of foreign cultures with our own.
Those of us who have frequently spoken of the menace of American programmes have considered the matter entirely from the point of view of recorded programmes. We are not against—of course we are not against—foreign shows,


foreign artistes, foreign musicians and conductors coming to this country and giving us the benefit of their own culture. It does not seem a bit surprising to me that we should be moving an Amendment to an Amendment moved by our noble colleagues in the other House. A Bill goes to the other place and comes back again in order to give as many opportunities as possible for it to be looked at. In the other place they did rush the Bill through, and I dare say that my noble colleagues had not fully considered the possible effects of limiting foreign visitors with their own programmes.
We are very anxious that this Bill when it becomes law, as presumably it will, should not be taken to exclude an exchange of cultural programmes of one kind and another. Most hon. Members, I suppose, have been to the American musicals put on in London from time to time. Some friends of mine make a point, before the six months are up, of going to see a full American chorus before it is replaced by a local one. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would wish to see American shows brought here.
When one talks of a British performance, one gets into terrible difficulties, in particular in regard to live programmes. I will not go into details, but will only say that there are important programmes that are not British in origin or performance. Indeed, if the Prime Minister were to give a party political broadcast, his mother being an American, I think that it would be very questionable whether it would be wholly British in origin, or British in "proper proportion." Those are questions of paternity and maternity which perhaps we ought to leave to a hereditary House.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will change his mind and will be willing to accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. In my view, it is a perfectly satisfactory proof of our sincerity that, if it has to come, we want commercial television to include the best from all countries and all we want to exclude is its very worst commercial aspect.

Mr. Tom Driberg: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite caught the point of my interruption. I support my hon. Friend's Amendment to the Lords Amendment for

the reasons which they have given. The hon. Gentleman resisted it on the grounds, as I understood him to say, that it was important that in this Bill we should give some more or less specific instructions to the Authority about live programmes. Earlier, when we were asking him to be a bit more specific about the definition of "proper proportions," he said, "We will leave it to the Authority to determine what proportions are proper." Really therefore, to keep in the words "and other" does not give any effective specific instructions to the Authority at all. On the hon. Gentleman's own showing in his reply on the previous Amendment, it might be 2 per cent, or 5 per cent, or 90 per cent., in the view of the Authority at any one time. As it would reduce even by two words a Bill the greater part of which is utterly futile, I am in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Shackleton: The Assistant Postmaster-General has been rather unfair to the Opposition in another place. Since he referred to them, I think it will be in order for me also to refer to the matter. He knows very well that this Lords Amendment was the result of a compromise between the two sides of the House, and the Opposition were entirely dissatisfied with this compromise in order to get rid of the thoroughly objectionable paragraph (a).
Let me explain the views of most hon. Members on this side of the House and, I am sure, of a number of hon. Members opposite. What we are concerned with is not to build up a nationalist culture in our commercial television system, but to protect not merely the British public but those who work in the entertainment industry—composers and others—from
the importation of cheap American programmes which have already recovered their cost. I should say that we have explained that point to the Assistant Postmaster-General at least 30 times. There is, therefore, nothing inconsistent in saying that, while we wish to prevent that sort of thing from happening, we do not want to put in the Bill some national tag on the type of programmes that shall be televised—in other words, to establish a British culture—

Mr. Philip Bell: Is it not begging the question to say that we want to keep cheap American films out? I understand that the hon. Gentleman does


not mind if an American play comes to London and is performed live, but that if a recording of it is made in America it suddenly becomes a cheap American play?

Mr. Shackleton: Let me try to explain. When I use the word "cheap," I mean inexpensive—in other words something which does not cost very much to put on because it has already recovered its cost. I am not using "cheap" in the perjorative sense in which it is sometimes used. I mean something the cost of which has already been recovered and which can be dumped in this country to the grave detriment of those engaged in the entertainment industry. That is frankly our case, and there is grave danger of an importation of programmes which have recovered their cost.
What we are saying is that, whereas there should be protection in the case of recorded matter, we want the field to be wide open in the case of all other types of entertainment. There is no doubt that Equity and similar organisations will seek in their negotiations to protect the interests of their members. I am content to leave it to them in negotiation with the I.T.A.
I think it is objectionable that we should put this type of provision in a Bill of this kind in an age when we are trying, I hope, to develop a more international outlook. To put into a Measure words of this kind designed largely to help the Government out of what they imagine to be a difficult position merely shows that they do not understand the object of television, whether it be commercial or publicly run. I ask the Government to look again at this point. It is not good enough, even if the Members of another place have arrived at a compromise, for this House to put into a Bill words of this kind which are deplorable by any standard.

Sir L. Plummer: I do not think the Assistant Postmaster-General has a right to accuse us on these benches of lack of political cohesion, because if anybody is lacking in political cohesion it is the Conservative Party. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bill) smiles, but we remember when the Assistant Postmaster-General would rather drop in his tracks than allow paragraph (a) to

be deleted. Over and over again the issues on which the hon. Gentleman has taken us into the Lobby have so angered the Members of another place, and it does not do for a Government which permitted a Bill which could not be amended here to be amended in another place to accuse us of lack of political cohesion.
It is important that the Assistant Postmaster-General should consider this point. He seemed deliberately to have misunderstood what I was saying when I moved the Amendment on the "proper proportions." I made it clear that I was opposing what I described as a sort of xenophobia where live artistes were concerned, and I did not like the references on the last Amendment to the constant use of the words
of British origin and of British performance.
The Assistant Postmaster-General continues to repeat this phrase and he appears to be following the example of his friends in the advertising business and repeating something over and over again in the belief that ultimately somebody will believe him.
We have made our position absolutely clear where live artistes are concerned. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this point. If programme companies produce a serious of programmes in the winter devoted to circuses, none of those could be described as "of British origin and of British performance" because there is no such thing as a British circus. Most of the performers are foreign, and a circus is a peculiarly Continental form of the art of entertainment. We might have a series of circuses night after night throughout the winter, and none of them could be described as "of British origin and of British performance."
Glyndebourne would be quite impossible. By no stretch of the imagination can Mozart be regarded as British. It is the same with ballet. There are no more than four or five ballets being performed anywhere in the world today which are British, and no more than two composers of ballet music can be regarded as British.
I hope that the Government will play their part in seeing that we pull down some of these "iron curtains" which separate the artistes who do not live in this country from our television screens. There is too much of this exclusion as it is. I should like to see employed in this


country many more of the American actors, singers, writers, and producers who are refugees from McCarthy. I should like those people to enrich the television screens of this country. For that reason, I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, having at last understood our point, will accept our Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am surprised at the Assistant Postmaster-General taking this line and charging us on this side of the House with lacking cohesion and with not knowing where we were going. If there is one man who has changed his direction and his policy more than any other, it is the hon. Gentleman himself. The number of times that he has changed these provisions cannot be calculated. Surely he can get into his mind that what may be right for films and telefilms coming from America may be entirely wrong for live programmes in this country. That is the point which my hon. Friends have been trying to drive home. In his anxiety to give the I.T.A. directions, what has become of that oft-repeated phrase of his "Trust the I.T.A."? Where has that gone? "Trust the advertiser"—that has all gone.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman is now very anxious that the I.T.A. shall receive a direction which he himself says is meaningless. He says that the question of what is a proper proportion should be decided by the I.T.A. He knows that if the Lords Amendment is left as it now stands, the Authority will be in a very great difficulty if an Italian opera or a British opera in which non-Britishers are singing is offered. What about all the foreign conductors who come either to Glyndebourne or Covent Garden? Are they to be excluded? I should have thought it was most dangerous to insert a provision of this sort. It will give the impression that we are an arrogant, uncultured lot.
Surely the hon. Gentleman ought to know what his own Government are doing? No foreign artiste can perform in this country unless he or she has a Ministry of Labour permit. That, in itself, ought to be considered adequate protection, and ought not to need to be reinforced by a direction in this Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have

second thoughts on this matter and will accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
Question, "That 'and other' stand part of so much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to insert words," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words proposed to be inserted by the Lords, at the end, to add:
(that is to say, performed and produced by British subjects).
We have now accepted in principle that there are to be proper proportions both of recorded and other matter, and we are also substituting for the words "programmes … of British origin" the words "programmes … of British origin and British performance." I noticed a short time ago that in talking about this matter of what was and was not British for this purpose the Assistant Postmaster-General, of his own accord, used the words: "produced by British people and performed by British people." "Of British origin," I should have thought, refers to the place of origin and, possibly, to the commercial side of the business. "British origin" may well mean "produced by a British company," and it would obviously include produced in a British theatre or cinema," thereby corresponding to part of the definition of "British origin" used in regard to cinemas. But the words British performance" have been added, and they clearly mean something.
I do not suppose that they necessarily mean that every performer must be British, but they certainly mean that there must be a substantial element of British performers. I suggest that there is no logical reason for not including the business of production in exactly the same way, and on exactly the same terms, as the matter of performance is included. The definition would apply both to the production of a play—a live performance —and to the production of a film. We further suggest that if it is omitted it leaves a very noticeable gap in the language of the Clause and would seem to indicate that no attention whatever is to be paid to the element of production.
After all, that element is notoriously of very great importance in films and in the live theatre, and exactly the same considerations apply to it as apply to those


of what I may call the leading performers. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will accept this proposed Amendment. He referred to it recently, in advance, as something which gave more detail to the instructions to be given to the Authority. It is nothing of the sort; it is a definition—a mere correction of what I am perfectly certain was an unintentional but real omission in the language of the Clause as drafted.

Mr. Driberg: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
In doing so, I must say what a relief it is to reach a question upon which we can feel reasonably sure that we shall have a clear and definite statement from the Assistant Postmaster-General. For the last hour or two he has been extremely vague—not to say woolly—on such subjects as a "proper proportion," but he said that when we reached this point—I took down the words he used—we should have to define minutely what we meant by "of British origin and of British performance." I therefore hope that he will do so, and he may be helped if he decides to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment, because that at least gives some definition to a phrase which otherwise is almost as meaningless as "proper proportion."
In defining it minutely I hope that the hon. Member will deal with two points. First, when he uses the word "British," does he use it as referring to citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. I ask that bearing in mind that he has had many interests in the Colonies in the past. I hope he will assure us on that point, because we would not wish to see a West Indian band excluded on the ground that it was not British, in the narrow sense of the term.
Secondly, in defining this phrase minutely, as he promised to do, I hope that he will define the word "and," in "of British origin and of British performance." Did he really mean to say" or, "or that rather curious locution— "and/or"? "British origin and … British performance" is a little sweeping and difficult to insist upon in every programme. For instance, would an arrangement of the "St. Louis Blues" played by the cousin of the Secretary of State for the Colonies—Humphrey Lyttelton—be of British origin and British

performance? It is really "or" that is needed, and not "and," in a case like that. We know that Humphrey Lyttelton can play the "St. Louis Blues" as practically no other band leader outside the United States can play it, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is prouder of his cousin than his cousin is of him. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will deal with those two specific points.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) asked me whether the term "British" was confined to citizens of the United Kingdom, or whether it meant something wider. In this connection it means something wider: it means citizens of the Commonwealth and also of the Colonies.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry to interrupt so early, but I particularly did not say "Commonwealth" because, of course, the title is no longer "British Commonwealth" on account of India's status.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, but in this connection the term "British" means Commonwealth citizens, and it also means citizens of Southern Ireland.
I am sorry I cannot help the hon. Gentleman about the "St. Louis Blues." I confess I have never heard of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Whether or not they will be permitted in this country in the terms set forth by the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid I cannot tell him. That is an instance of the sort of thing we are entrusting to the Authority.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for a genuine attempt to define something not very easily defined. He wants to help the Authority, I know, in this difficult task of discharging its functions in this respect. He is quite right, for it is not easy to define in specific terms what we mean by "British origin" or "British performance" and—

Mr. Driberg: Or.

Mr. Gammans: "And" or "or." We have "and" in the Lords Amendment. In the film quota the criterion which has been applied—and this is one of the difficulties we have to face, and that we have had to cope with before—is that of the labour costs involved in the making of a film, and the extent to which those labour


costs are applicable to British subjects. That has never been a quota easy to operate.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not the phrase in the film industry the phrase "of British origin"? Is what the hon. Gentleman is saying applicable only to the question whether it is or is not of British origin? The trouble here is that another phrase is added, the phrase "of British performance." I am sure the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us what it means.

Mr. Gammons: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right. I was using the analogy of the film quota only as an example of the difficulty of precise definition. The only question we have to ask ourselves is whether the definition proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would help the Authority in any way, If it would, then, I think, we ought to consider it. If it would not help in any way, there would not be very much point in adopting it. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would agree with that. I have considered this very carefully to see whether it would help in any way, and I cannot see that it would.
We have laid upon the Authority general instructions as to what shall guide it in the selection of programmes. I do not believe that if we were to attempt to break the instructions down, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests by his Amendment to the Lords Amendment, we should help very much. I should like to have accepted his Amendment to the Lords Amendment because I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to be helpful, but I do not feel that if we were to accept it we should make the task of the Authority any easier or help it in any way in carrying out the injunctions laid upon it, and for that reason I must resist it.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he applies different standards to performers and producers?

Mr. Shackleton: The Assistant Postmaster-General must give the House a better answer than that, and I am sure we shall give him leave to speak again. He has not answered any of the questions put to him. There is one simple question, that is whether the words of the Lords Amendment should be "British origin and of British performance" or

…British origin or of British performance." Should the word be "and" or should it be "or"?
If the hon. Gentleman does not know, perhaps it would help if we were to postpone further consideration of the Lords Amendments to allow an interval in which one of the Law Officers could come to help. We have had to make such a suggestion on other occasions. We are not working under the Guillotine now, and we have time on our side. If one Minister is inadequate in dealing with a question, we can send for another to deal with it. We must have an answer to the questions that have been asked. The proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment was a probing one, moved in an attempt to find out what this was all about, and if we do not get answers to our questions I think that my hon. Friends will not be prepared to let this matter go.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The matter has been put very firmly to the hon. Gentleman, who says that the programmes must be of British origin and of British performance, although when it comes to production he is not prepared to agree that that, too, should be limited to production by British producers. I cannot understand why it is that he cannot give us an answer about that.
Then there is the other question whether the Lords Amendment should read "… British origin and of British performance "or" … British origin or British performance" or "British origin and/or British performance." Surely this is important? Yet all the hon. Gentleman says is that because" and is in the Lords Amendment he will take "and." Should it not be "or"? He said it could be either. Which is it? The hon. Gentleman certainly ought to inform himself of what is the intention of the words in the Lords Amendment, and I ask him to make another effort to tell us what the Government mean by these words.

Mr. G. Darling: I feel very much concerned about this point, as I think we all do. When I first read the Lords Amendment I took it to mean that the programmes could be of British origin or of British performance, and the importance of the word "and" in this context has


been brought home to me only in the last few minutes. The Lords Amendment says that proper proportions of the programmes must be of British origin and of British performance, and it may be that the proportions of British origin and performance will be large proportions. The question is whether works, for instance, of a foreign composer and performed by a British orchestra will or will not come within this definition. Will a film, whose script was written by a foreigner, which was directed by an American, which was made in this country, and which it is desired to show on television, come in this definition or not?
Surely, what the Government mean is that the programme should be of British origin or of British performance not of both British origin and British performance? The definition in the Lords Amendment is so narrow that as proportions, that may be large proportions, of the programmes have to be of British origin and British performance the programmes will be of a very limited range. I am sure that that cannot be the Government's intention.
We are entitled to expect from the Assistant Postmaster-General, who is responsible for this Lords Amendment, or, at least, is the spokesman of those responsible for it, an explanation of what it means. He should not sit there as if the matter is of no concern to him. I think it is of great concern to the whole Bill, and particularly to the working of the Independent Television Authority. If the hon. Member is not concerned about these important matters, I think we ought to move the Adjournment of the House in order to see whether somebody else can come here to tell us what these words mean.

Mr. Houghton: The Assistant Postmaster-General is being very tiresome, if I may say so. I rise only to give him a few more moments for reflection. He singled out this Amendment for a special approval. He said it was a genuine Amendment. The inference to be drawn from that about the other Amendments was a little hurtful to other hon. Members, but we swallowed our pride and took the implied rebuke. We thought that here at last we were to get something from the hon. Gentleman.
A little later he said that he was sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was trying to be helpful, so that was a double blessing to the Amendment, and we thought that the hon. Gentleman would say, "In view of the genuine nature of the Amendment and the helpfulness of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will accept the Amendment." Instead, he said that he regretted that the Amendment would not help him.
I should have thought that any Amendment to the Bill which defined the ambiguous would be helpful, because so far the refuge of the Assistant Postmaster-General on all questions about definition has been, "What is proper is what the Independent Television Authority considers to be proper; what is suitable is what the Independent Television Authority considers to be suitable; what is due impartiality is what the Independent Television Authority considers to be due impartiality; what is good taste is what the Independent Television Authority considers to be good taste."
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that British origin and British performance is what the Independent Television Authority considers to be British either in origin or in performance—

Mr. G. Darling: And in performance; that is the whole point.

Mr. Houghton: I should have thought that the hon. Member would have welcomed this lifeline which my hon. and learned Friend has thrown out to him, because nothing simpler could be inserted at the end of the Lords Amendment than the words,
(that is to say, performed and produced by British subjects).
If there is any doubt about who are British subjects, we could leave that, but at any rate our Amendment states more clearly what British origin and British performance mean.
I hope that the interval which I have given him to ponder further will lead the Assistant Postmaster-General to ask the leave of the House in order to say that, in view of the helpful nature of the genuine Amendment, he will accept it. If it does not help, at least can he say whether it does any harm? If it does no harm, then there is some virtue in


his saying that for once he will oblige the Opposition. Even on that footing I appeal to him for some sign that there is some flexibility in his approach to the matter and that it is not all vested in the Independent Television Authority.
Question, "That those words be added to the words proposed to be inserted by the Lords," put, and negatived.
So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to insert words, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In line 42, at end insert:
(4) Except with the previous approval of the Authority, there shall not be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority—

(a) any religious service or any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature;
(b) any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes.

Read a second time.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment. after "for." to insert "religious."
This is a pleasant occasion on which one can say something complimentary about the Postmaster-General. By this Amendment to the Lords Amendment I am seeking to close any hole which may be left after the Postmaster-General has apparently accepted the view of, I think it was, the Bishop of Bristol in the debate in another place. We are wholly in agreement with the general purpose of the Lords Amendment.
If our Amendment were accepted, paragraph (b) would read,
Any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for religious, charitable or benevolent purposes.
This is the sort of Amendment which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman might accept. He may argue that paragraph (a) covers the point because it refers to
any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature.
It may be said that the organisation of a body is something different from the nature of the body. I am not quite certain that paragraph (a) completely covers

advertisements by religious organisations or covers the point of religious purposes.
Some religious organisations may be legitimate charitable organisations. Equally, some benevolent organisations may be religious organisations. On the other hand, it is possible that a religious organisation could get advertisements or notices in the televised programmes without coming under the ban under paragraph (b) as drafted, while paragraph (a) does not necessarily exclude them, either.
As I understand it, the purpose of the Lords Amendment is to exclude religious advertising in all shapes and forms. If that is the purpose, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider our Amendment as removing any possible chance of our entering into the field of competing religious advertisements. If we can look at the Amendment co-operatively, I hope that in the interest of religion in this country we shall be able to stop anything which the Postmaster-General obviously desires to stop. I hope that such a sensible and co-operative Amendment will have at least some sympathetic consideration from the Assistant Postmaster-General, which will be quite unusual from him.

Mr. Ross: I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will give serious consideration to the merits of our Amendment. We have gone quite a long way since our original Clause relating to religious matters, but I very much doubt whether even yet we have gone far enough. It is surprising that the Government were more prepared to listen to arguments in another place than to listen to our warnings here, but it may well be that the cumulative effect of all the voices that have been raised on this matter has proved successful.
It would have been far easier had the Government in the first place done the plain straightforward thing which we wanted and placed the creation of these religious programmes directly in the hands of the Independent Television Authority. As a result of their refusal, we have now to write in more restrictions. In writing them in we expect that there will be a certain amount of pressure from various bodies and we have to look for loopholes as they might arise.
7.30 p.m.
As I see it, the position is this, that there will now require to be the previous approval of the Authority before there is any religious service of any kind and also before there is any religious propaganda. So far as formal religious advertisements are concerned, they are still covered by the Second Schedule which rules them out altogether. But then we have left other religious matters. They are still dealt with, I think, in Clause 6 (2,a), so that any other item or programme in which there is a religious element is purely and simply a matter for the programme contractor and the I.T.A. to seek the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee.
I do not know why the approval of the Religious Advisory Committee has been ruled out in this one small section. I think that is the only thing which now divides us. The Government have gone so far that I hope that if they accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment they will have completely covered the matter to the satisfaction of practically everyone in both Houses. I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that the Lord Bishop of Bristol, when he moved the Amendment in another place, had second thoughts and felt that it would have been better if the word "religious" had been put in. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
There is one other thing on which I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's opinion. That is whether the Government have given consideration to a point raised in another place as to whether or not it was desirable that all charitable advertisements or items of that kind should be dealt with by the Religious Advisory Committee.

Mr. Gammans: I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I think that he was talking about appeals for good causes and things of that kind. The B.B.C. has a special Appeals Advisory Committee, and we hope, and expect, that the same Committee will be prepared to advise the new Authority with regard to appeals. If that is done, I think that he would agree that that would be a very satisfactory solution.

Mr. Ross: I agree, but will that be done under the Bill, because there is another Amendment already on the Order Paper that changes considerably Clause 6 (2, a), and the implication of the two Amendments is that this is a matter which must be referred to the Religious Advisory Committee?

Mr. Gammans: No. The Authority has full powers to set up what advisory committees it likes, and we hope that on this question of appeals it will be advised by the same committee that advises the B.B.C. What we are now discussing is whether it is necessary to insert the word "reliaious" before the words "charitable or benevolent purposes." I hope that I shall convince the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that it is unnecessary to put in this word because the matter is covered in an entirely different way.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would probably be covered by the provisions of paragraph (4) (a), but he was not quite sure and wanted to be reassured. I think that I can reassure him. Of course, religious advertisements as such are banned under paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, as he himself said. What I think the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of is an item, not an advertisement, which gives publicity to a religious object. The main reason why I do not think the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is necessary is because of the judgment of the House of Lords, in 1891, in a famous case, the Income Tax Commissioners v. Pemsel.
It was a case with regard to a donation or publicity—I have forgotten which —with regard to the Moravian Church, and the judgment in the House of Lords, which still operates, was that the word "charity" in law includes four different divisions. One of these is its use in the ordinary sense of the word "charity." Another is in connection with the promotion of religion, and the other two are not relevant. Therefore, to put in the word "religious" would not add in any way to the power conferred by the subsection and would, from a point of law, be quite meaningless. I hope that I have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that we accept his point.

Mr. Houghton: Can we add this to all the other meaningless things in the Bill?

Mr. Gammons: I am trying to take this seriously, and I do not think the intervention of the hon. Gentleman helps very much. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in the points which he put forward; at any rate I am, and I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question which, I think, was a perfectly fair one. He wanted reassurance on this matter, and I hope that I have given it to him and convinced him that this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is not necessary because the point is fully covered in another way.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry that there is no Law Officer of the Crown present, but I would just as soon, with all respect to the Law Officers, have the opinion of the Home Secretary on this matter. I feel considerable doubt about this. The case to which the Assistant Postmaster-General refers is, of course, a very well known case indeed, but the context, purpose and subject matter of Lord Macnaghten's speech in that case was so entirely different from what we are considering here that I feel very doubtful indeed whether the religious purpose would in this context be necessarily included in these words.
I should like to give my reasons for trying to argue what is, after all, a matter of construction. There are two matters to be considered. Under paragraph (a) of the Lords Amendment there are quite definitely religious matters. They are so called, and there they are. There is no doubt about it. Then we come to paragraph (b). It is not a religious need or object which we are talking about. It is a need or object
of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes,
and the two words hang together as it were.
At first sight, I would have said that the natural meaning of this, considering one's own experience and knowledge of what goes on the wireless, would be that appeals and things of that sort on behalf of associations or organisations of this kind were with the purpose of at least commending them generally to the public in some way or another. The fact that they came under separate subsections and that they were really treated in quite a different way, and there were questions here about organisations and associations, did seem to indicate that they were not

meant to include religious associations. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, if he is to reply, as I hope he will, the sort of case which I have in mind.
Assume that there is an association or organisation connected with particular religious and, perhaps, doctrinal purposes of some church or another or some sect or another. Of course, it may or may not come under (a); that would depend upon the kind of publicity that was being given in this way. But is that an
association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes 
in this context, for instance?
One does not want to do more than take instances, and of course nothing turns upon the particular instance that one takes, but let us assume that there was, for example, a particular Catholic or Protestant organisation conducted for the purposes of the particular religious views of the people concerned, and the question was whether it was or was not in this context an
organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes.
Is the Home Secretary prepared to say that he is quite certain that in this context an organisation of that sort would be included in the words "charitable cm benevolent purposes"? I suggest that it is at least doubtful—I should have said that it was more than doubtful—in this context, and that no harm could possibly be done by putting in the word "religious" if, as I gather to be the case from the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply, it is intended to include the word "religious" here.
It is a matter which I should be prepared to argued at much greater length than the House would wish anybody to do at this moment, but surely, if there is any doubt, particularly in view of what was said in another place, no harm could possibly be done by putting in the word "religious." It would make it perfectly clear that it was intended to cover that particular set of circumstances, and I do not think anybody would suggest that by inserting it we could possibly limit the meaning of the other two words.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I gladly accept the invitation of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has put the matter


most clearly, as far as one can state any doubt clearly, and with great temperance in expression. I do not share the hon. and learned Member's doubts, and I shall try to prevent the rest of the House being bored for too long with what the House usually calls a lawyer's holiday, but I should like to give the hon. and learned Member the reasons.
First, let me put the difficulty in the form of an actual experience of my own when arguing a tax case dealing with charity before a learned judge some years ago. He said to my opponent at the Bar, a distinguished Revenue "silk," "Are you referring to charity in the sense that it is used in the 13th chapter of I Corinthians?" My learned friend replied, "No. I am using it in the wider sense known to courts of equity." There is a distinction, as the hon. and learned Member appreciates, and I should like to take up the point that he made. He does not dispute, because he is familiar with Pemsel's case, that the speech of Lord Macnaghten is the foundation of the modern application of the law of charities.
Lord Macnaghten was seeking in that speech to relate charitable purposes as known to modern courts to the old fount and origin, the Preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth. Lord Macnaghten made the four categories, which were religion, education, poverty and a vague one for other public purposes which are analogous to those mentioned in the Statute. I do not think that anyone would have any doubt that "charitable purposes," especially as stated with regard to the object of an association, would include religious purposes.
7.45 p.m.
When one is deciding the sordid question of whether an association is to pay Income Tax or not, one of the relevant points is as to whether their purpose is charitable in that way. But the hon. and learned Member was disturbed by the argument on context, and I agree that it is one that wants consideration. I refer the hon. and learned Member, first, to paragraph (a), in which is included "religious service" and, secondly,
propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature.

These are attempts to define clearly things which are fairly easy to denote and which are fairly clear in their connotation as well. But when one comes to the second point—this, I think, is the answer—the words are
conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes.
The hon. and learned Member will be just as familiar as I am with the distinction which courts of Chancery have drawn between "charitable" and "benevolent." My memory may be wrong, but I think it is the case in re Macduff in which that juxtaposition was a matter which the court had to consider. It came to the conclusion that the addition of the words "or benevolent" to a testamentary instrument introduced such a new element that it took it out of the conception of "charitable." I am sure that the hon. and learned Member remembers the interesting examples, which I will not quote, as there may be an Ulster Member in the background, which were given by the judges in that case.
The point that I make to the hon. and learned Member is that when we have "charitable" in contradistinction to "benevolent," as we have here, I should be satisfied that "charitable" was used in its legal sense, and that when used in its legal sense it would include the religious purposes. I do not want to elaborate the argument, but I have considered it and the hon. and learned Member was good enough to be polite about my opinion. For what it is worth, I have given it.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept my assurance that I should have accepted his opinion if he had not given reasons for it? I find it even more convincing with the reasons he has given.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the Home Secretary's argument not rest upon the assumption that this sort of thing will come before the courts? We were told earlier that this sort of instruction, and so on, to the Authority would never come before the courts. When we asked what the words in the Bill meant, we were told that they were instructions to the Authority and that they meant what the Authority might think they meant.
Therefore, we are not arguing that we should insert something to satisfy the


courts. We say that we should put in something to guide the Authority when coming to its conclusion as to what it thinks the words mean it to do. I should have thought, therefore, that argument in that respect was beside the point, because this sort of thing will never get anywhere near the courts. We are giving instructions to the Authority, and because the words in the Bill will always mean what the Authority thinks they mean, our view is that they ought to be made as clear as possible. That did not seem to me to be met by what he was saying.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think it does meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman, because I have not applied my mind to the question of whether an ingenious legal mind could not bring this before the court. It still remains an obligation to any body in a Statute to follow the legal sense of the words in so far as the body can find out what is the legal sense. We were wanting to make clear, and I have tried to do so, that charitable purposes includes religious purposes. As far as that is concerned, it is important to get at the meaning, and I am sure that the meaning will be followed. This is not only to deal with the religious question —which I think it does—but it also has to deal with appeals as a whole and I think it gives clear instruction.

Mr. Houghton: I want to apologise to the Assistant Postmaster-General for any discourtesy in my recent intervention. It was not made with that intention and was intended to be a mildly facetious observation, which evidently misfired. I apologise if I hurt the feelings of the hon. Gentleman. On this other matter, there is one point worth bearing in mind, namely, that many of the provisions of this Bill are not put there for legal purposes but to reassure the public and to satisfy them as to the guiding principles upon which the Independent Television Authority will work.
We have already seen that much in the Bill would not be legally enforceable. I need not go over much that we have already discussed in Clause 3 and I am sure that we would not be expected to go back to the case mentioned in 1891. Generally, I think people would not appreciate that a religious body is a charitable body for certain purposes and that one includes the other.
I do not know whether there is any difficulty in particular cases. For instance, I understand that in the case of Moral Rearmament there was a legal tussle over whether it was a religious body and could obtain the benefits of charitable objects within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts. Another marginal case may be the Lords' Day Observance Society, and there may be others. No one will really know whether they are a religious or charitable body and so it might have been worth while putting that beyond doubt. I do not press the matter, but I emphasise that we are not here to split legal hairs but to reassure the public, and that if they do not understand that religious means charitable, it would probably be as well to say so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the co-operative debate we have had, the courtesy shown us, particularly by the Home Secretary, and the assurance that the purpose of this Amendment is covered already by the words of the Lords Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The Question is—

Mr. Shackleton: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker may I point out that we have not yet had any explanation of this Lords Amendment except in passing. I do not want to exhaust my right to speak, but it seems to me that we should have some explanation.

Mr. Gammans: I was under the impression that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said that the Opposition were satisfied—

Mr. Shackleton: On our Amendment.

Mr. Gammans: If I misunderstood him, I apologise. I thought that we might have saved time by not referring to the Lords Amendment in detail. However, I will explain it, since I have been asked to do so. I suggest that in discussing this Lords Amendment it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed the Lords Amendments in page 7, line 46 and page 11, line 20.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it is in order to discuss those Lords Amendments with this one. They should be discussed separately.

Mr. Gammans: I thought we could discuss them but not dilate on them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how that distinction is made, but it is strictly in order to take the Lords Amendments as they come.

Mr. Gammans: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The effect of this Amendment would be twofold. It would mean that the previous approval of the Authority would be required for all religious services, religious propaganda and charitable appeals. It would also extend the scope of the Religious Advisory Committee to cover any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature. The new Amendments clear up a number of points to which the other place attached importance and which I think are desirable in order to clarify the situation.
The first is under the new subsection (4) of Clause 3 which reads:
(a) any religious service or any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature;
These have to be approved by the Authority and, under Clause 6 (2,a) as amended in another place, the Religious Advisory Committee has the duty of advising in these matters. The reference to religious propaganda is desirable because fears were expressed in the other place that this might create a loophole by which a church, for example, could give publicity to the fact that it wanted money or voluntary helpers.
The second point covered by the words apply to what we call the "Week's Good Cause." Here the Authority has to decide which good causes should be publicised. Without the approval of the Authority, no contractor can broadcast any item, whether as an advertisement or not, which is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has missed out the important words "which gives."

Mr. Gammans: Yes, which gives or is designed to give publicity. The reason

this paragraph (b) has been included is to prevent a programme contractor, without the approval of the Authority, from giving publicity to a rich church to the possible exclusion of some equally deserving but less powerful organisation. In theory it would have been possible for a rich body, by being able to pay for an advertisement, to get some advantage by reason of its wealth. This can no longer happen, since the Authority itself has to agree which good causes shall be publicised. I think the House will agree that it is desirable to have some control over appeals for good causes. As I have told the House already, there is a special committee dealing with this in the case of the B.B.C., and we hope that the same committee will be prepared to advise the new Authority. That deals with the main objects of this Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mayhew: Our discussions have been so appropriately charitable that I wish to put my question to the Assistant Postmaster-General in the most calm and uncontroversial way possible. I should like him to explain a little more the word "propaganda."
As I understand this Clause, whereas the approval of the Religious Advisory Committee and the Authority must be obtained for religious services, and for what was described as "religious propaganda," religious programmes do not require such approval. This may be an oversight on the part of the Government. I feel that a religious programme which is neither a service nor propaganda, but which nevertheless is of a distinctively religious character, should have the consideration of the Advisory Committee. Such a programme might inadvertently give offence, or give an undue proportion of time to one particular religion or sect. That again might give great offence. Surely this should be included somewhere in the Bill. Perhaps we might have a specific explanation.
Last Sunday I saw a programme which was neither a religious service nor propaganda, but which was a distinctively religious programme. It was a programme about a religious mission, I think in West Ham. Is that sort of thing included under the Bill, or is it the intention of the Government to exclude it?

Mr. Ross: I had hoped that we would obtain some assurance or clarification


from the Assistant Postmaster-General on this very important point. The hon. Gentleman should define "propaganda" in order that we may be reassured. We can easily understand the matter of pure, formal propaganda; but this is a question of indirect approach. We have created many restrictions because we recognise the danger; but the danger will remain in the shape of people, associations or bodies who are prepared to use television for their own purposes. We must remember that we are dealing with commercial television; that there are people who are prepared to commercialise religion, and that therefore we may well get indirect propaganda.
I wish to know the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend. There is still the possibility of bias being used for some denomination or other in the way of indirect propaganda; a sort of week-by-week or month-by-month bias towards one denomination or another—not only favourable, but unfavourable propaganda as well. The public might easily be turned against a certain denomination by a programme which, without seeming to do so, made a laughing stock of a particular association.
I can remember seeing a lady who was fairly well known—I do not suppose it was meant to be so—make a laughing stock of a particular body. I am thinking of Mae West as someone in the Salvation Army. That kind of indirect propaganda might be used in such a way. I think that we ought to be reassured about this word "propaganda." It is a point about which I am concerned.

Mr. Gammans: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is not like the Committee stage of a Bill. We are now discussing Lords Amendments, and there is no right of reply.

Mr. Ross: But the Assistant Postmaster-General has not yet spoken.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Assistant Postmaster-General has spoken.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry.

Mr. Shackleton: We are in some difficulty here, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will assist us. This is not a point upon which we should take up much time, and the Home Secretary

knows that hon. Members are worried about the use of the word "propaganda." I do not know whether it would be in order at this stage to move a manuscript Amendment which might make the position more clear.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It is too late at this stage to move any Amendment at all. The Question has been proposed.

Mr. Shackleton: But may we have some further explanation? Perhaps the Home Secretary could answer the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will do my best. I should first point out that in the Amendment before the House we have a very wide range. We first of all have the words, "any religious service," and then the words,
any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature.
I think that one of the difficulties of the hon. Member is met by the very wide phrase,
matters of a religious nature.
because as I see it, that would cover a great variety of matters connected with religious affairs, even though they were not part of the activities of a known church, or anything of that kind. I should have thought that that was wide enough to cover the sort of matter described by the hon. Member, although he will agree that it is difficult to pick up the exact terms from a description.
Then we have paragraph (b) which states,
any itemwhich gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association.…
On the one hand, we have "propaganda" which, I think, covers the doubts of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) because, of course, propaganda may work either way. Secondly, we have the words, which the hon. Member noted as my hon. Friend was reading them, namely, that in addition to,
gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association …
and on the view that I take of "charitable," that it includes "religious," that means that we have any item which is,
designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for 


religious purposes. That again, to my mind, covers a very wide field.
In addition to that we must bear in mind the provision of Clause 6 (2, a) which says
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Authority shall in particular appoint, or arrange for the assistance of … a committee representative of the main streams of religious thought"—
and so on—
to give advice to the Authority on any religious services or other matters of a religious nature ….
I should have thought that between these provisions we had covered the dangers likely to arise. On this point there has been complete co-operation between everyone interested in the matter, and we have tried—I think we have succeeded —in dealing with the difficulties which I know were in the minds of hon. Members.

Clause 4.-(ADVERTISEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, leave out lines 12 to 17, and insert:
(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment which reduces considerably the wording used in the original draft. It has no other significance, and all I can do is to express my gratitude to an old colleague of ours, now Lord Silkin, who found this way of reducing the number of words.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, leave out lines 18 to 22.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Without, I hope, transgressing the previous Ruling, I ask hon. Members to look at but not to discuss the Amendment to page 8, line 22, and the insertion of the words "this section" that is made there. This Amendment is also a purely drafting Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In line 46, after "needs" insert "or objects."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Amendment which was connected with the Amendment in page 6, line 42, which we discussed so fully. In view of our discussion and the connection between the two, I need only move our agreement with the present Amendment formally.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 22, leave out from "under" to second "the" in line 23 and insert "this section."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Amendment to which I referred a moment ago and is really consequential.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, divide Clause 5 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (4) inclusive, and the second to consist of subsections (5) to (8) inclusive.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope that the House will agree that this drafting Amendment makes the Bill easier to follow by dividing Clause 5 into two separate Clauses.

Clause 5.—(CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 10, leave out from "control" to end of line 22.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I should like hon. Members to look forward to the Lords Amendment to page 11, line 9, and to bear in mind that that Amendment proposes to insert a new Clause A.
The effect that we desire to secure by agreement with this Amendment is that the Postmaster-General may make orders by Statutory Instruments, subject to an affirmative Resolution, to prevent the


making of exclusive arrangements for broadcasting to restricted audiences of sport and other events of national interest. This question was discussed in Committee and then we agreed to come to no final conclusion on the matter but to leave it to my noble Friend the Postmaster-General to have further negotiations with the sporting interests and the B.B.C. to see if some final solution could be arrived at. Hon. and right hon. Members will remember that when the Bill left this House there was a provision which laid upon the Authority and, in the finality, upon the Postmaster-General the duty to draw up a list of public ceremonies and sporting events in which there could be no exclusive rights to broadcast.
The idea was that there are a number of events which, as I have said before, are part of the British way of life and for that reason should not be broadcast to a limited audience. On the other hand, since this matter was first considered, it has always been very clear that no sporting promoter should be compelled to have a sporting event broadcast unless he wished to do so. That has never been our intention.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is difficult to know whether we are now discussing the merits of the Amendment in page 11, line 9. I can see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman is explaining it, but will we be in order in dealing in effect with the merits of what the Home Secretary is now saying, because the immediate Amendment only clears the way for the later one?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that strictly that Amendment should be taken when we come to it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There is the difficulty, which I think we all appreciate, that if one is clearing the way for something else the only justification for clearing the way is to attempt to indicate for what one is clearing the way.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We accept this Amendment and we will discuss the merits of the point later.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 33, at end insert:
(5) The Authority may require from time to time from the programme contractors such declarations, returns, documents and other

information as the Authority may consider necessary or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with.

8.15 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of the new subsection (5) is to enable the Authority to obtain from the contractor such information as the Authority may consider necessary to ensure that the requirements of the Act are complied with. If my memory serves me right, the history of this matter is that Amendments on similar lines, to the Third Schedule, were put on the Order Paper by hon. Members opposite but were not debated. I hope therefore that the House will agree to the Amendment.
The Amendment will enable the Authority to obtain from the contractors all the information they need to ensure that the Act is complied with. It could, for example, make sure that the rules for disqualified persons have not been contravened or that programme companies are not entering into secret agreements which might mean that there was no real competition between them.
I do not want to make any false point to the House, as I am aware already that Clause 5 (5) states that
The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain all such provisions … necessary or expedient … for complying and securing compliance with the provisions of this Act … 
Therefore, a provision of this kind could be or should be inserted in the contracts, but we felt that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be glad to see these provisions in the Bill itself and therefore we accepted the Amendment of our former colleague, Lord Silkin.

Mr. Shackleton: The Home Secretary is quite right. There was a similar Amendment which I think we discussed, but the Guillotine fell rather heavily and we never got very far with it. However, before we agree to the Amendment, I should like him to find out a little more about its meaning with regard to certain matters. It was suggested by a Government spokesman in another place that under this wording it would be open for the Authority to demand scripts from the


programme contractors. I should like to know whether that is so.
I take it that it means that the Authority will have access to the accounts of the programme contractors, especially if they are private companies, in order that the Authority can fulfil the wish of the Assistant Postmaster-General and share in their profits. That was the view that was expressed by the Assistant Postmaster-General. It would therefore be helpful if, before we accept this Lords Amendment, which does commend itself to the Opposition, we could have some information on these points.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It seems to me that this is certainly the minimum that is necessary to protect the Authority, and through the Authority, of course, the viewers, in regard to the programme contractors. We raised this matter during our previous debate, but unfortunately the Guillotine intervened in such a way that no real debate took place.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary exactly how far this goes. In the first place, we are here discussing an Amendment—it will, presumably, be accepted—which will give the Authority the power to demand these declarations, documents and other information that may be required, but will that enable the Postmaster-General to have a sight of them? Will he obtain from the Authority the information which he wants about programme contractors? As I understand the Bill, these contractors are a very long way from control; they are very remote from the Postmaster-General, and therefore, from any form of public accountability. I was rather hoping that hereby a way may be found which will enable a little more control over them, indirectly through the Authority, to be obtained.
There is one other point on a different matter which occurred to me on looking at the Lords Amendment. It is whether it could be used, and usefully used, by the Authority to ascertain in advance exactly what plans the programme contractors were making, and what form the advertisements which they were to submit were likely to take. More important than that, I should like to know if it would be possible, in this case, if a complaint in regard to an advertisement was

received from consumers who had accepted the word of the advertiser and had purchased goods, and, obviously, the advertisement having gone out on the ether and disappeared, as it were—if the consumer was dissatisfied with the result of his purchase and considered he had been misled—it would then be possible for the Authority to ask the programme contractor to provide a copy of that advertisement so that he could check up and see whether he had been misled and whether he had a case against him?
If this Amendment can be interpreted as widely as that, it may well serve a very useful purpose, and I think that, if that interpretation can be put upon it, and if it can be used to obtain information about what has gone out in the past, if and when that is required, at the same time hoping that it can be extended further than appears on the surface, I feel sure that this Amendment will commend itself.

Mr. Mayhew: I think the remark of the Home Secretary that one of the purposes of this Amendment was to prevent secret agreements between the programme companies needs amplification. It is very revealing that the Government, at long last, are recognising that this is likely to happen. Now that they have whittled down the number of programme companies to two, nothing is more likely than that these two will work in with one another vis-àvis the advertisers opposite the Authority in relation to the viewers. They will have agreements about payments to be made to artistes and for advertisements, and perhaps on the pressure to be brought to bear on the House of Commons. The Government have recognised that the total result of establishing competitive television will be that two people will work in close association and by secret agreement unless they are prohibited from so doing.
Even at this very late stage of the Bill, the Government should be prepared to clarify this point. Not only have the Government been revealing in that sense, but they have been extremely naïve if they think that they can prevent understandings between monopolists by asking for certain information. If these people gang up together, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that they will write it all down in a document so that


the Authority can read it? The people who work together to exploit the public do not put things in writing.
Let us take the Home Secretary and the Assistant. Postmaster-General. They have been working like a team throughout the entire afternoon, covering each other very well. There is no secret written agreement that they should back each other up through thick and thin, and the same is true of the two tycoons of television. Now that there are only two programme contractors instead of three, this matter deserves more attention being paid to it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know if I can trespass on the patience of the House to reply, but I am very ready to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned trespassing on my patience in order to reply to a specific question put to him. It may be that the answer to a specific question is in order, and not a general reply, but it is quite clear that no right of reply exists on this discussion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I wonder if the Home Secretary might clarify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). If there is an aggrieved person, who feels that he has been deceived by an advertisement, and who may have a legal remedy if he can obtain a copy of the advertisement if it appears in a newspaper, in the case of advertising on the air, the advertisement disappears. Could such a person have access through the Authority to the documents? Otherwise, a lot of harm may be done to individuals, who will he deprived of the remedy which the law will normally give, except for this curious and unique medium by which advertising may be put out.
The second point is that the Home Secretary says this is to he done for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of the Bill are complied with. Does it enable the various advisory committees to be set up under the powers given in the Bill to the I.T.A. also to have access to these documents? It would be very hard for them to do some of their work unless they can keep track of the programmes and make requests for scripts and so on.
Finally, would there be any means by which the House of Commons could

obtain access to some of these things by asking that they should be placed in the Library, or anything of that sort? We will not be able to ask, through the Postmaster-General, for some sort of check on the I.T.A. programme contractors unless we have some record, other than mere memory, of what we see or hear and what has been happening, and some means of producing it in the sort of form in which it can alone be produced in this House?

8.30 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The governing words of the new subsection are the last words:
… as the Authority may consider necessary or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with.
In my view, and it is the strictest view that can be taken, that is a forward-looking provision, which the Authority can use to ensure that the programme company will comply with the provisions of the Act.
There might be a little doubt whether it could be used for securing information as to a previous breach, but I want to make it clear that there is nothing to prevent the I.T.A. providing, in their contracts with the programme contractors, that sound records of news, talks and discussions should be retained for so many months and produced or copied when required on payment of a suitable fee. It would be the easiest matter of legal drafting. I do not think that the difficulty, which I am putting up in order to raise any possible point that may be in the words, would prevent the Authority from taking the course which is desired.
Perhaps I might go on further and answer two other points. I should have thought a provision with regard to accounts might well be related, and could reasonably and advisedly be related, to the requirements as to the constitution of the programme companies and their relation to advertisers and others. I have explained the double way in which that could be met.
With regard to the question of the aggrieved person, much would depend upon whether the I.T.A. made provision with regard to the keeping of records. The aggrieved person could then operate through the I.T.A. The same applies to the advisory committee. I would rather not commit the position of the House of


Commons, because that would be dependent upon an analysis of the various points at which the Postmaster-General is able to call on the Authority to do what he wants, thereby making the situation answerable to the House.
With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) I must not be led into giving a general reply, and I will try to avoid that difficulty. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of murdering anyone or anything, even the King's English or logical argument, simply because there is a law against murder. The second point I put to him is: If he pours contempt on the method I would remind him that the Government of which he was a distinguished member used the same method in their monopoly legislation, and that the method has been used in the United States for 61 years. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at a short and handy book on monopoly, may I inform him that I myself once wrote one?

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Before the Home Secretary sits down finally, may I ask him—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can speak, but he should not ask further questions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who will be asking to reply to them.

Mr. Thomson: I wanted to seek one further piece of information and not to promote further discussion. I wondered whether in the Lords Amendment, under the heading of "other information," would come the question of record films? The point is important because we are dealing not merely with a verbal but with a visual medium and in the case of an advertisement which caused offence and hurt people's feelings, or of misleading material, the offence might not lie merely in the verbal presentation of it. I wonder whether in cases where the material is recorded as a film it would be possible for the Authority and the Postmaster-General to obtain that film as part of the information that is necessary in evidence when considering any complaint that might be made.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think it would be doubtful as to the actual film, but it would certainly cover the requirement to

give a description of the film—any letter press—and a description of the visual art. I would not like to go further than that.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 15, after "pounds" insert:
on a first occasion, one thousand pounds on a second occasion, or one thousand five hundred pounds on any subsequent occasion;

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment—and I do not think it needs much legal exposition—is to increase the maximum penalties which the Authority may demand for a second or subsequent breach of contract by programme contractors. This Amendment was moved in another place by the leader of the Opposition in that House, and it was agreed to. I think that its purposes are clearly obvious, and therefore, that I need not occupy the time of the House by describing them.

Mr. Mitchison: This is a gift horse which came into the world, apparently, under the best auspices, and I am sorry to have to look the animal in the mouth. However, I must look it in the mouth a little because I think it makes it perfectly clear what a very bad provision this penalty provision is. After all, we have been hearing from the Assistant Postmaster-General that a proper proportion was what appeared to the Authority to be a proper proportion, and that a number of other things were what appeared to the Authority to be so and so. But when we come to a penalty—even the penalty to be demanded by the Authority under the contract—that, apparently, cannot be left to the Authority.
I fail absolutely to see why there ever has been any need for a penalty at all, or why it has to be fixed in these curious terms. I think that the Government must have been suffering from a bad attack of arithmetical progression. When I learned arithmetic when young, I discovered that there was also geometrical progression, and a third kind, about which, I admit, I know very little. I think it was called harmonic progression. If we are going to reduce this question of penalties to the kind of mathematical absurdity which appears in this Amendment, then I see no reason for preferring an arithmetical to a


geometrical progression, although the results, I think, would be somewhat different.
What really is the sense of having any limit whatever to the penalty that is to be demanded under the contract? If we cannot trust the Authority to put that sort of thing right, how can we trust it to decide the far more important question of what is and what is not a proper proportion of British matter in a programme? It seems to me to be quite incredibly childish when previously we have been far too trusting.
We give the Authority no clear directions about matters of the greatest importance—we leave those to its wise discretion—and yet, when it comes to a question of a penalty for a breach of contract, we need only tell it what it is to be on the first, the second, and the third occasion. One supposes that, if there is a fourth occasion—or a fifth or a sixth—that that at any rate will be left to its discretion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Any subsequent occasion."] I am sorry Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I had not appreciated the full beauty of the matter. It is not only the third occasion, but at this point the progression stops. After that one can be as naughty as one likes— and as grievously naughty and as often naughty as one likes—if only one is prepared to pay the sum stipulated.
As no one knows what the profits of this business are to be, directly and indirectly, as no one knows what real advantage it will be to those commercial gentlemen, to attempt to fix any penalty at this stage instead of leaving it to the Authority seems to me to be distinctly premature. To continue doing it I should have thought was wholly and totally absurd. I suppose that we shall accept the gift horse, but a more rotten collection of teeth in its mouth I do not think I have ever seen.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 6, after "prejudice" insert:
to the right of the Authority to accept as a repudiation by a programme contractor any breach of contract by the programme contractor going to the root of the contract and.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment is to make it clear that nothing in Clause 5 (8) shall prejudice the right of the Authority to accept a fundamental breach of contract by a contractor as a repudiation of the contract. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General dealt with this matter. He took the view, which I confess I shared, that that right was there even without the express words. However, a suggestion was made in another place that this subsection was not clear, and as this was the object which both sides of this House and of the other place wanted to see in the Bill, we accepted the Amendment, which was moved by Lord Ogmore.
I should hesitate to attempt a legal definition, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) might agree that a breach going to the root of the contract is such a fundamental breach as makes it clear that the party by whom it is committed no longer intends to be bound by the provisions of the contract.

Mr. Mitchison: This is a much better gift horse than the last and is something which I believe is really needed. At the least there was doubt, possibly not only in my own opinion but in the opinion of some of the Home Secretary's right hon. and learned Friends, whether the Authority had power to treat a fundamental breach as a repudiation. It was given such other, such limited and such curious remedies that it might well have been doubtful whether it was entitled to the more ordinary ones given to the more ordinary citizens.
I am very glad to see that the Government have recognised in terms that if even that model of commercial virtue the programme contractor shows that he does not intend to be bound by the contract, the Authority in that case can say that it shall not be bound either. I think that is all it comes to, but I think that it is a comment on the provisions in favour of the contractors as against the Authority that it should be necessary—as I believe it was—to put in something of this sort. This is the elementary right of any ordinary person. I am glad to see that the poor Authority is at any rate to have one of the teeth with which the ordinary person is allowed to bite when provoked.

New Clause A. —(TELEVISION BROAD- CASTING FACILITIES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN SPORTING AND OTHER EVENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 9, at end, insert:
A.—(1) With a view to preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting to a restricted audience of sporting or other events of national interest, the Postmaster-General may make regulations as to the grant to the Authority and programme contractors and to the British Broadcasting Corporation respectively of television broadcasting facilities in respect of such events.
 (2) Regulations made under this section shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any event specified therein unless the visual images are transmitted within seven days after the happenings represented by those images respectively.
 (3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and before making any such regulations the Postmaster-General shall lay a draft thereof before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the regulations until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft.

8.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the point on which I commenced to embark on the forbidden sea of a future Amendment, and I now move it in its proper place. I was informing the House that when we dealt with this point in Committee we agreed to come to no final conclusion in the matter, but to leave it to my noble Friend the Postmaster-General to have further negotiations with the sporting interests and the B.B.C. to see if some final solution could be arrived at.
At that stage, as I reminded the House, the Bill still contained the provision by which my noble Friend could draw up a list of public ceremonies and public sporting events for which there should be no exclusive right to broadcast; but I also pointed out that it has always been clear since we first considered this matter that no sporting promoter should be compelled to have his sporting event broadcast unless he wished to do so. I do not think it has been anyone's intention that anything else should obtain.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General said that the sporting interests were not very happy about this proposal because it would have

meant that we were detracting from the cash value of the most important of their events by preventing them from selling the rights of transmission to some particular broadcaster, and we, on the other hand, felt that we had the national interest to consider, and that is why this provision was put in the Bill.
Since then, the idea has gone through a number of stages. At one time an Amendment was proposed drawing up a list of the sporting events which any programme company would have to share with the B.B.C., and vice versa. The next proposal, which was made in another place, was for a new Clause and a Fourth Schedule which empowered the Postmaster-General to schedule a limited number of events subject to a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This Amendment laid down that a request had to be made for broadcasting facilities, by the B.B.C., the I.T.A. or the programme contractors five months before the event took place and if agreement on terms was not reached arbitration had to be resorted to. Then on Report this procedure was considerably simplified by an Amendment which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition Peers, Lord Jowitt, and a simpler Clause was put down which had far less rigidity, and it is this Clause which I ask the House to agree to.
I cannot do better than put the argument as it has been put before, far better than I can:
In fact, we will keep Parliamentary control over what is a difficult situation and, at the same time, give considerable latitude to the Postmaster-General to deal with this situation —and I think it is going to be a very difficult situation. I feel certain that that is a much wiser course than putting ourselves, as it were, in a strait waistcoat with regard to a matter about which we know very little.
That was the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, and in reply my noble Friend the Postmaster-General said:
I welcome the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, which has been very well received "—
I ask the House to note the words of my noble Friend—
not only by the sports promoters but by the B.B.C. itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 188, c. 1218–1219.]
I think that this House has always realised that it is a difficult question on which to legislate, and to legislate in


detail at this stage. We might bind ourselves too tightly, or devise an arrangement which would be cumbersome or unworkable in practice. I think the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition in another place—that the whole matter should be left to be regulated if necessary by Statutory Instrument at a later date, and that any order would have to come before Parliament for approval—is a wise suggestion, and, as such, I commend it to the House. I would remind the House of what I said about the B.B.C. and the sports promoters. I am informed that they have been consulted and are content with the solution now proposed.
We shall have to see how the matter works out and in what ultimate guise and form the regulations will have to be made, but I am grateful to everyone who has shown patience and co-operation in arriving at what I think is the best present solution to a very difficult problem.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This Amendment represents an advance on the previous position, but it does some contradictory things. First, it prevents commercial television from obtaining a monopoly of the great sporting events; secondly, it prevents competition between the B.B.C. and commercial television, and thirdly, it makes one or the other programme not an alternative programme. It is apparently the intention of the Government to provide that any great sporting event shall be transmitted both by the B.B.C. and by commercial television. In other words, commercial television will not provide an alternative programme—which was one of the fundamental reasons mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for introducing commercial television. This is a dilemma of the Government's own creation.
The Lords Amendment does not provide a solution to this problem. All it does is put off the solution. I should be the first to admit that this is one of the most difficult fields in the radio set-up. If the B.B.C. were to run both the first and the second programme, we should have an alternative programme, because the same programme would not be broadcast on both transmissions, but, as the Government have decided that the second programme shall not be run by the B.B.C., we must face the problem of commercial television outbidding the

B.B.C., or vice versa, for the transmission of these great national sporting events.
It is right that commercial television should not be entitled to make an agreement or a contract which prevents the vast majority of viewers from seeing the great sporting events. How does the Amendment propose to deal with the matter? It proposes to give the Postmaster-General authority to make regulations. What those regulations are to be, no one knows. All we know is that it is the intention of the Government to see that neither system obtains a monopoly. If both are to show great national events there will be no alternative programme.
I know how difficult this is going to be, but whatever solution is arrived at, that solution should come before this House for examination, and it is right that the Postmaster-General's regulations should have to be brought here and approved by affirmative Resolution. However, I still cannot see any sign that a solution can be obtained, and we have no indication from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what form the solution ought to take. In a sense, what we are doing is facilitating the passage of the Bill by deferring the whole problem. What we do in this regard we should do with our eyes open, and what we ate doing is passing the Bill and leaving for future discussion and settlement the problem that goes to the root of the matter.
That is not a satisfactory way of proceeding. We have been discussing commercial television for over two years. Back in 1952 we had the declaration about what the White Paper called the "competitive element," sponsored television, and I should have thought that there had now been sufficient opportunity to have arrived at least at the heads of an agreement about these great sporting events. The problem was so difficult that the Postmaster-General, realising its difficulty, proceeded in the silly way in which he generally has proceeded with the Bill, and dismissed the Sports Television Advisory Committee that was helping to solve the problem.
When I was Postmaster-General we set up that Committee consisting of very responsible people in sport, and the B.B.C. was associated with it, as were the


Radio Industry Council and educational interests. We had them all in, to try to devise the best means of obtaining the televising of great sporting events in such a way as not to kill the promotions.
That will be the problem, as probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. If we transmit a picture of a great boxing event as it is taking place the stadium will be empty. The result will be that there will be no more big promotions. If Wales is playing Ireland at Rugby football and the game is televised at the time it is being played, there will not be a single person attending a football match, for everyone will be watching the television. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. It is a fact. When England plays Wales at Twickenham, there are no club matches in Wales, and the club matches around the periphery of London are played in the morning, so that everyone can go to the international match in the afternoon, because otherwise no one would watch those club matches. I am merely indicating the nature of the problem. There is a lot to be said on both sides—a lot to be said on the part of the promoters and a great deal to be said on the part of the viewers.
9.0 p.m.
This is a difficult matter and I would not underestimate the difficulties before any Postmaster-General. It is right that whatever he does should be brought here. We are quite certain that the B.B.C. must not be isolated in this matter. It must have its fair share. It ought not to outbid for every great national sporting event, and neither the B.B.C. nor commercial television should be allowed to obtain an exclusive right to transmit such events. Whatever transmissions are to take place should take place as a result of consultations between the B.B.C., on the one hand, and the I.T.A., on the other hand, with the Postmaster-General holding a balancing position in between.
If that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, no doubt it will commend itself to us. The provisions to bring those regulations before us in that sense are welcome. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that the Amendment deals with a dilemma which the Government themselves have created. If we had a unified,

co-ordinated transmission of the second programme, this problem would not arise. It is a consequence of the Government playing up to a very small number of people who hope to make a lot of money out of the second transmission.

Mr. Hobson: I should support the Amendment with the alteration of one word. The Postmaster-General "may make regulations." If it read, "shall make regulations" I should support it, and I cannot understand why the word "shall" is not used. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had before him the Report of the Copyright Committee dealing with this problem. The question of copyright has led to difficulties in the broadcasting of these sporting events, as has been generally recognised. That Report has been in the Minister's hands for some time and I should have thought that he had had time to examine its implications and to change the word "may" to "shall." If that were done, we should then be in the happy situation in which both organisations could broadcast these sporting events. I do not know whether I am in order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would not be in order in suggesting an Amendment to the Lords Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Hobson: I am suggesting that I would have supported the Amendment with the alteration of that word.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot bring himself within the rules of order by that ingenuity.

Mr. Hobson: I appreciate that.
One final question: are these regulations to be subject to negative Resolution or affirmative Resolution?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Ede: In the first place, I congratulate the Home Secretary on being able to give us a sound legal opinion on this Amendment, although he put himself out of order, strictly speaking, in doing it, because I understood him to quote verbatim from a speech which my noble Friend, Earl Jowitt, made in another place. While the Home Secretary is entitled to give us the offhand reflections of the Lord Chancellor and other lesser


legal lights in another place, provided they are Members of the Government, as I understand it he is not entitled to reinforce his argument with a verbatim quotation from one of my noble Friends. Nevertheless, it is a good thing that he did so, because for the first time today we have had some sound sense from the Government side of the House.
I want to thank the Assistant Postmaster-General for his reference to a speech which he had previously made in the House on the subject of televising the Derby. I wrote to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who hopes to get somewhere near the winning post at Epsom in the near future—the nearer and sooner the better, although I hope he gets pipped at the post. I want to thank him for the investigations he made and the Assistant Postmaster-General for the speech which he made as a result, and to reinforce what my right hon. Friend said with regard to there not being alternative programmes for these great events.
After all, most great sporting events in this country are viewed from diametrically opposite points of view by large sections of the public. I am very interested in the Derby, but a great many of my Nonconformist friends regard that as a signal falling from grace on my part. If they were forced to view the Derby and nothing else on a certain Wednesday afternoon, in what we hope would be an English summer, they would find themselves in very great difficulty. I recollect what happened when "Ladas" won the Derby and Lord Rosebery stood open house to all the people of Epsom and had the mass bands of the Guards there to entertain them. My parents went, but most of their co-religionists walked up Chalk Lane so that they could hear the bands but not see the revelry that was associated with them.
Surely it is clear from the debates which we have annually on the Budget that there are certain hon. and right hon. Friends of mine who take very different views about big boxing matches—and the Government will be faced with the same thing there. I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, if competition is the basis of the Government's proposals, then when these great moral problems present themselves to certain sections of the public they are

left quite defenceless, and the Government have failed.

Clause 6.—(ADVISORY COMMITTEES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 20, leave out "on any religious services or" and insert:
as to the exercise of their functions in relation to any such items as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section three of this Act, and on any.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment brings Clause 6 (2, a) into line with what we discussed in regard to Clause 3 (4, a) by widening the words from
…on any religious services. …
to the words which we have already discussed and on which we have had an interesting debate, namely, religious services or propaganda. Therefore, having discussed this point, I do not think that it is necessary to elaborate it further.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 23, leave out "and."

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were able to discuss this and the related Amendment in page 11, line 31. The effect of this Amendment would be to prepare a code of standards—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This raises the same point as we discussed earlier.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely there will be no objection to omitting the word "and," because it is obvious that we will agree to the last committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps this Amendment can be taken formally.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 29, after "contractors" to insert:
with a view to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from such programmes, and otherwise.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "misleading," to insert "improper, or otherwise undesirable."
The Lords Amendment, which we propose to amend, relates to Clause 6, dealing with advisory committees. The Lords Amendment proposes to add words to subsection (2,b), so that it would then read:
 a committee representative of organisations … to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors with a view to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from such programmes, and otherwise as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid.
The Amendment that I have moved is to add words to the words which the Lords propose to add to subsection (2, b) and would have the effect of broadening the basis of consultation. It would go beyond
the exclusion of misleading advertisements from such programmes 
and would include the consideration of "improper, or otherwise undesirable advertisements."
I bear in mind that in Clause 4 (5) it is
the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed and to carry out any directions which he may give them in those respects.
But that duty is laid upon the Authority
Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection.
It rather looks, therefore, as if the Authority will consult the Postmaster-General from time to time and that he will tell the Authority what type of advertisement it is not to accept—or, to be more precise,
the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised.
He may also direct them on
methods of advertising which must not be employed.
Subject to that, the Authority will have the benefit under Clause 6 of an advisory committee, which will be representative of organizations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services. I presume that under subsection (2, b) of the Clause, that committee will give advice to the Authority from time to time on matters within its jurisdiction, subject to any directions given by the Postmaster-General under Clause 4.
In our view, it is not enough that the consultation should relate only to misleading advertisements. There are advertisements which, while not being misleading, may be regarded as improper or otherwise undesirable but yet may not come under any previous ban put upon them by the direction of the Postmaster-General.
There was very little said in another place upon this Lords Amendment when it was accepted on behalf of the Government. It was said, however, that it met with the approval of the Retail Standards Association, and I am sure that this alone would give it a considerable stamp of approval. However, there may be advertisements of goods and services which the Postmaster-General does not ban, and there may be methods which the Postmaster-General, by direction, has not prohibited, and yet there may be advertisements within the directions given which may be improper or otherwise undesirable.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is talking in a general way; would he give us an example?

Mr. Houghton: Yes, for example, as far as I understand, the Postmaster-General will not prohibit advertisements of intoxicating liquors. I do not know. It is within his power to do so under Clause 4. However, he may decide not to do so —

Mr. Hobson: He may think "Beer is best."

Mr. Houghton: Since no ban of that kind is given, and no direction is given to the Authority as to methods of advertising intoxicating liquor, it may be within the discretion of the Authority, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, as to whether that advertisement or any other proposed advertisement is misleading. Supposing an advertisement says, "A good booze-up will do you good." That may not be misleading. It may be a matter of opinion as to whether a good booze-up would do one good, but many people might say, "Hear, hear, to that. I have tried it and it worked." The Authority might consider that such an advertisement, whilst not misleading, was improper or otherwise undesirable.
Take another example. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General will ban


advertisements from money lenders, but supposing he decides in general that money lenders are public benefactors, and that the facilities offered by them to members of the public should be brought to their attention. Now supposing a money lender says, "Wives, why be dependent on your husband for that new hat? Why not buy it the easy-pay way?" That may not be misleading, it may be an easy-pay way, but is it desirable? Is it improper or is it otherwise undesirable?
The Postmaster-General may not ban the football pool advertisements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am responding to the invitation of the hon. Gentleman that I should give some examples.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would my hon. Friend consider the question of the advertisement which is misleading to certain people? For instance, some weeks ago it was suggested that the use of a certain shampoo powder would make me resemble Miss Rita Hayworth. I have tried it and I have been told that there is no resemblance even to this day.

Mr. Houghton: It is not for me to interpret the word "misleading." Whether that advertisement would be banned by the Authority on the ground of it being misleading, I do not know, but I should say that, having regard to the very unsatisfactory results in a particular case, the Authority might say that it was improper or otherwise undesirable. We want to broaden the basis on which the Authority may take the advice of the Advisory Committee on whether the advertisement should be put on television or not.
I have one final example, that of football pools. The Postmaster-General may not ban advertisements for football pools. It is possible that the football pool promoters may say, "Put your shirt on the four aways this week." That may not be misleading, it may not be improper, but it may be otherwise undesirable. It would not be in the public interest that too many shirts should be put on the four aways in any one week in the year. After all, there are other laws which have to be observed when it comes to putting our underwear on football pools.
There is a serious point here which we wish to submit to the House. By broadening the basis of consultation, and

taking it beyond the word misleading we may include advertisements which, while not being condemned on the ground of being misleading, and not banned by the Postmaster-General, may nevertheless in principle be improper or otherwise undesirable.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
I wish to deal with the point of undesirability. The House will be aware of the work done by the Copy Committee of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society in selecting the advertisements offered to newspapers, and I imagine that in this case a similar sort of organisation will have to be set up. That is not because the I.T.A. does not trust the advertisers, or because it shares the view that all advertisers are scoundrels. It is because it must be satisfied that the sort of advertisements it got were not designed solely for the purpose of swindling the victim. That will be one of the more easy things that such a body would have to do.
In all the work done by these advertising censorships, one of the simplest tasks is to exclude the advertisement which is deliberately misleading and which is designed to part the sucker from his money. What is much more difficult, because advertising is a fairly skilful trade, is to protect the reader or, in this case the viewer, from what is unsatisfactory either because of reasons of bad taste, or because it is completely undesirable.
The medical committee, or the committee which is to deal with medical advertising, would be able to deal, for example, with the claim of a prominent make of laxatives who maintained that "One of these pills given to baby every night will cure baby's constipation." Of course, if a baby were given a pill every night, by the end of the year there would be no baby left. That is the sort of misleading advertisement with which the medical committee could deal. Indeed, I think that the patent medicine advertiser would have a rather rough ride, particularly from the B.M.A. representative.
But even more important is where the advertiser says that something is "good for you "—that a certain cigarette is good for a sore or tender throat. No one but


the advertiser would believe that for a moment. Everyone who has ever smoked cigarettes when they had a sore throat knows quite well that almost all tobacco is irritating to the throat. Therefore such a claim is undesirable and is something which ought not to be permitted.
There will also be the rather more highfalutin' advertisement "You can write short stories and earn —£20 a week." This is a sort of trick advertisement, because everyone believes he can write short stories. Everyone believes that, if only editors were a little more lenient, he could be another O. Henry, and that there are vast sums to be made from writing short stories. Of course, short story writing is a very skilful trade in which few people succeed. But, if we do not control this sort of thing we shall have people who ought to be bus conductors wasting their money trying to be short story writers.
This has no high dramatic appeal, but it is nevertheless important. I suggest that, just as newspapers go out of their way to protect their readers from misleading advertisements of the sort designed to separate a man from his money, so we should take the responsibility of seeing to it that undesirable advertising—undesirable because it is offensive, such as advertisements asking, "Have you got bad breath?" or, "Are your bowels working?" should not appear on television. That is the sort of advertisement that we know is not attractive even when it meets the eye, much less when it meets both the eye and the ear. This is the sort of thing that is so undesirable that an Amendment to the Lords Amendment of the kind that, we propose, designed as it is to protect us from the offensive as well as the misleading, should be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Gammans: I doubt whether an insertion of the kind proposed is really necessary, and I think that if hon. Members will consider the matter very carefully they will agree with me. My noble Friend accepted this Amendment in another place for the reason that the Merchandise Marks Act did not apply in general to advertising by television. As I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary informed the House before I came in, the Retail Trading Standards Association was disturbed

about this and felt that it was desirable to take power in some way to exclude misleading advertisements from television programmes, although it had been our view that excluding misleading advertisements, in any case, would have been one of the principal objectives of the body which we are setting up to advise on standards of advertising.
I should have thought that that body, which consists of advertisers, advertising agents, and representatives of the Ministry of Health and of the British Medical Association, would certainly have prevented anything in the nature of improper advertising. If it did not do so, I should not have thought that it was doing its job. We are going a little far in suggesting that a committee of that standard would ever lend itself to allowing an advertisement which was in any way improper to be put on the air.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the Committee have power to vet all advertising before it appears?

Mr. Gammans: Its job is to advise the Authority with regard to advertising, and I should have thought that if it was desirable to vet advertisements before they appeared the committee would certainly do so. The hon. Member is putting a very low estimate on the professional standards of advertising agents and also of the people who want to advertise.
We now come to the word "undesirable." What is undesirable? The manufacturer of one particular product would regard it as highly undesirable if his rival were to advertise the same product. I could imagine the partners of Watney's breweries taking a strong objection to any advertisement about Bass being good for one. I suggest that "undesirable" in this sense does not lend itself to exact definition.

Mr. Hale: Surely the words "otherwise undesirable" in this definition means what this expert committee thinks is undesirable, and surely that is exactly what the whole House wants. The House wants the expert committee to be able to say, "For reasons that we cannot define in detail, this advertisement is undesirable and therefore should not be allowed."

Mr. Gammans: They have full power to advise the Authority on the type of


advertisement, and if one is regarded by them as undesirable, they will certainly say so.
9.30 p.m.
Another reason for rejecting the Amendment is because of the power given in Clause 3 (1, b). This places upon the Authority a duty to see that nothing in a programme offends against good taste, decency and so on. Again, in Clause 4 (5) the Postmaster-General has the power to give directions to the Authority about forbidden advertising and advertising methods, and I would suggest that these safeguards are quite adequate for what we have in view. I cannot see that there can be any real danger about this.
Let us see what are the safeguards. First, there is the safeguard of the Postmaster-General's powers under Clause 4 (5). Second, there is the setting-up of the Advisory Committee which I have mentioned. Then, what I regard as perhaps one of the most important safeguards of all, which has not yet been mentioned in this discussion, there is the present high standard of the advertising profession, which has a code of its own which it has published. For finality, the Independent Television Authority can refuse to broadcast anything under Clause 3 (1). I think that these powers are extremely wide, and they cover any conceivable form of abuse. For that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: The only reason for refusing this Amendment to the Lords

Amendment can be that we are not a trade association. There is no other possible object in the exceedingly illogical speech which we have just heard. We put up one specific instance of the misleading advertisement, and everybody is agreed about it. If the hon. Gentleman's argument was right, there would be no reason to put it in, because it is already covered by what he calls the safeguards. We then said that, if he was going to put in one instance, he had better cover all the other instances, and put down the words "improper, or otherwise undesirable." If he refuses it upon the grounds that there is no reason for leaving out "misleading," there is no reason for not putting in the other words.

Does he consider that the gentlemen with the high standards of the advertising profession are not going to object in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent? Is there a subtle difference between a lie and a bit of impropriety? What has the Merchandise Marks Act got to do with it? If we put in one instance, we must put in the others. It is part of the duty of the Authority generally to keep its programmes clean, and we have to guard against the dirty liar—both sides of him—whether he is dirty or a liar—and if the hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, I can see no reason at all for his attitude.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 245: Noes. 265.

Division No. 210.]
AYES
[9.34 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.


Adams, Richard
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Burke, W. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Callagnan, L. J
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Baird, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E.


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J.
Fienburgh, W.


Bartley, P.
Chapman, W. D
Finch, H. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Clunie, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, M. M.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Forman, J. C


Beswick, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Blyton, W. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gibson, C. W.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Glanville, James


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gooch, E. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, Anthony


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Deer, G.
Grenlell, Rt. Hon. D. R


Brockway, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Grey, C. F.




Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hargreaves, A.
Monslow, W.
Snow, J. W.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Hay man, F. H.
Morley, R.
Sparks, J. A.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Steele, T.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Herbisort, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Holmes, Horace
Oldfield, W. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hoy, J. H.
Orbach, M.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thornton, E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Timmons, J.


Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles
Tomney, F.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parker, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paton, J.
Wallace, H. W


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Peart, T. F.
Warbey, W. N


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Watkins, T. E.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Porter, G.
Weitzman, D.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
West, D. G.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Keenan, W.
Rankin, John
Wigg, George


Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wilkins. W. A.


King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Willey, F. T.


Lawson, G. M.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Richards, R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lindgren, G. S.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (S. Pancras, N.)
Wilson, Rt, Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham C.)


McGovern, J.
Ross, William
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


McLeavy, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Yates, V. F.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Short, E. W.



Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shurmer, P. L. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R
Crouch, R. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Arbuthnot, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Davidson, Viscountess


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Deedes, W. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Banks, Col. C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Donner, Sir P. W.


Barber, Anthony
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Sir David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Carr, Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cary, Sir Robert
Drewe, Sir C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Duthie, W. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cole, Norman
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Colegate, W. A.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Birch, Nigel
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Black, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Erroll, F. J.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fell, A.







Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Low, A. R. W.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreoambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gammans, L. D.
McKibbin A. J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott, R. Donald


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maclean, Fitzroy
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Glover, D.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Shepherd, William


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Patriok (Lanark)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mannhigham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Soames, Capt. C


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Speir, R. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, A. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E.
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Summers, G. S.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neave, Airey
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Higss, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Teeling, W.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hollis, M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Holt, A. F.
Oakshott, H. D.
Tilney, John


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Odey, G. W.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Horobin, I. M.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Vosper, D. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Page, R. G.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Wall, Major Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, H. A.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wellwood, W.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Kerr, H. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lambton, Viscount




Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, G.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ramsden, J. E..
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R
Wood, Hon. R.


Lindsay, Martin
Redmayne, M.



Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Llewellyn, D. T.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.


Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 31, after "included" insert:
in such programmes, or in any publications issued

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment deals with the previous Amendment, which has been agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 31, at end, insert:
and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid: and

(c) a committee representative of organizations, authorities and persons having experience of and special interest in the welfare and education of children and young persons, to give advice to the Authority as to the principles to be followed in connection with the broadcasting in such programmes of matter intended for children or young persons."

Read a Second time.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "Authority," to insert:
and to the Postmaster-General (who shall lay a copy thereof before Parliament).
This is a very late opportunity for the Assistant Postmaster-General to redeem his personal honour with regard to certain undertakings given by him to Parliament. It concerns the code of advertising. In the course of our debates I think that the Assistant Postmaster-General, aided by certain hon. Gentlemen behind him, has learned what the advertisers' code is. I should like to draw his attention to three statements which he has made. First of all, in the debate on the White Paper he said:
 … a code on advertisement is to be drawn up and, incidentally, it has to be agreed with the Postmaster-General.
Later he said:
What I have said is that the code which the corporation will lay down has to be approved by the Postmaster-General, and in so far as it has to be, it is subject to Questions in the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1953; Vol. 522, c. 56.]
Later, so that there is no possible doubt, he said in Committee:
I would remind hon. Members that the whole code of advertisement has not only to be agreed by the Authority but approved by the Postmaster-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2334.]
When we put this Amendment, and an Amendment which now appears as a Lords Amendment, on the Order Paper, the Government rejected them with their usual arguments "Trust the I.T.A. Trust the advertisers." I shall not repeat those arguments, which are all too painfully known to both sides of the House. When the Bill got to the Lords, however, it was decided to accept the code, with the result that we have an Amendment which goes some way towards meeting the wishes of the Opposition and the undertaking of the Assistant Postmaster-General.
My hon. Friends and I would like to take it a little further so as at least to put the Assistant Postmaster-General right with the House. This is a great opportunity for him. It is an Amendment which he can accept without any difficulty at all. It imposes no other obligations on the Authority, the advertisers or anyone else than that they shall supply a

copy of the code to the Postmaster-General, who will put it in the Library of the House of Commons. It ensures, in fact, that this undertaking that it will be submitted to him and that he can be questioned on it in the House is fulfilled.
I hope that he will not be misled by the arguments used by the Government spokesman, I think the Paymaster-General, in the House of Lords in rejecting this part of the Amendment. There the noble Lord, the Earl of Selkirk, said:
What is the use of appointing an advisory committee if we do not trust it to do anything? First of all, it has to submit a code for the approval of the I.T.A.—and we are not to trust the I.T.A. Then, under the Amendment, the I.T.A. is to submit it to the Postmaster-General—and we do not trust the Postmaster-General. Then the code is to come to Parliament. That is really going too far."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th July, 1954; Vol. 188, c. 980.]
For the Paymaster-General to make a statement like that in the light of the undertaking of the Government is really going too far, especially when he made the totally incorrect statement that Parliament can, of course, annul it. Parliament could have done nothing of the kind either under the Amendment moved in the Lords or that which we are now putting before the House. I do urge the Home Secretary and the Assistant Postmaster-General to think that this only means that he has to publish the code in a form acceptable to the House—in other words, to put in the Library a copy of the code which it is already agreed shall be drawn up.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) has pointed out the reasons why the Assistant Postmaster-General should at this late stage accept our Amendment, but even apart from the question of his honour and his opportunity of redeeming his pledges to this House, I submit that there is no reason whatever why he should not accept this Amendment which requires this code to be laid before the House, because it would only make this provision of the Bill consistent with various other parts of the Bill.
Already a great number of safeguards which have been introduced as the Bill has proceeded through its various stages


have to he presented to the Postmaster-General or agreed by him in consultation with the Authority, and in other cases laid before this House. The Postmaster-General, in consultation, can amend the Second Schedule. He can determine the classes of advertisements which can be banned from being put out by the I.T.A., and he can make certain rules regarding the classes of advertisements and the intervals during which they are shown.
In those circumstances, he has accepted the necessity for a code being laid before this House and, as I say, it would only be consistent with the other provisions if he agreed that this code should be laid before us. We have sought all the way though to increase the responsibility of the Postmaster-General to Parliament so that he can be questioned and some measure of control can be kept over the E.T.A. This is simply another manner in which, in a small way, that control can be increased.

Mr. Gammans: I am very touched by the solicitude of the Opposition to protect my honour, but I hope that I shall succeed in convincing them that this is a matter in which my honour is not at stake. The hon. Gentleman is tending to mix up two quite distinct things. The first is that the Postmaster-General must agree on the classes of advertisements and the methods of advertising which may or may not be employed, and in that respect the Postmaster-General is subject to question in Parliament and is subject to close Parliamentary control.
What we are talking about now is the advertising committee which is to be set up, consisting of representatives of various bodies, who are to advise the Authority. The question is whether that code need be placed before Parliament.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman take it in two stages? The first point is the provision whereby it must be laid before the Postmaster-General for his approval. The second point is that it is to come before Parliament. There are two points involved.

Mr. Gammans: The Amendment as it now stands says that the Committee has
to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid.
The question is whether that is enough or whether it should go any further. I

think it is unnecessary to go to the length of demanding that this code of standards should be submitted to the Postmaster-General and should be placed before both Houses of Parliament. After all, we are dealing here not only with a responsible committee—I hope it is—but a responsible Authority as well. I suggest that there is no need to bother Parliament with details of this sort. As to whether the Authority, having got a code, should publish it, that is for the Authority to decide. It might wish to do so, and it might not. The advertising associations of this country have a code of their own which, I believe, is published, and the Authority may take the same attitude with regard to this code. I suggest that this is a fiddling matter which we should not expect to have to debate in this way in the House of Commons.

Mr. Shackleton: The Assistant Postmaster-General says that this is a fiddling matter, and yet he gave a specific undertaking, using the words "advertising code" and saying that this code would be published and that he could be questioned upon it.

Mr. Gammons: The undertaking which I gave, if my memory serves me right, refers to the code to which the Postmaster-General himself has to agree, as to classes of advertisement and methods of advertising. As that has to be approved by the Postmaster-General it is subject to the scrutiny of this House and, if necessary, to question. But this other code will be prepared by the advertising committee, and I suggest that as it will be coming from a responsible body it is not necessary to provide that Parliament should deal with it in this way. For those reasons. I cannot accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: What is this other code to which the hon. Gentleman is referring? What I think he has in mind is Clause 4 (5), but that does not mention any code. It mentions that directions shall be given from time to time, but they do not constitute a code. They are directions, given in special cases. What does the hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. Gammans: I was referring to the powers vested in the Postmaster-General.


We might regard them as a sort of code, and they are subject to this House, because the Postmaster-General can be asked any question about it, and the subject of his prohibitions can be raised in debate in this House if necessary.

Mr. H. Morrison: That is really not the point. That has nothing to do with the code. That is some possible power of the Postmaster-General to require the Authority to consult him as to the classes of advertisements which may or may not be broadcast. It is a different proposition altogether.
There are now three points involved; I thought at first that there were only two. The Assistant Postmaster-General has now said that there is no obligation upon the Authority or the committee to publish the code which they draw up. It may all he done in secret. There may be no publicity, and the public may not know what the code is. Whether the advertisers will know, I do not know, but I should have thought that they ought to know, so that they would know what they are doing.
This is really a pantomime Government, and we have a really extraordinary Assistant Postmaster-General. This is not a fiddling matter; it is an important matter. This advertising code on commercial television is a matter of fundamental principle. It will regulate not only the classes of advertisements but the type of advertisements, the things which advertisers may do and the things they may not do, the timing and spacing of advertisements, and a whole lot of other things connected with the morals and public spirit of the advertisements to be permitted on television.
This is a matter about which Parliament should know and have a power of veto. We have a Highway Code, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It is provided in that Act—which I had the honour of introducing—that the Highway Code not only has to be brought before Parliament but has to be approved by affirmative Resolution. I know that the Highway Code is a matter of very great importance, but so is this. It will be of very great importance to the class, character and standard of advertising on television. It is atrocious that the Assistant Postmaster - General should

affirm, first, that there is no obligation upon the Authority or committee to publish the code; secondly, that the Postmaster-General should have no power over it; and third, that Parliament should have no rights in this respect.
10.0 p.m.
We say that Parliament ought to have rights in this respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackle-ton) is absolutely right, for the personal honour of the Assistant Postmaster-General is involved in this matter. It is no use his sitting there cynically smiling as though he did not know what honour meant. I hope he does. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] His honour is involved. I am assured by my right hon. Friends that the Home Secretary himself, who, perhaps, will not go in for cynical smiling —I should be sorry to see the representative of the Home Office do that in this connection—gave a similar assurance on Second Reading. I can make two quotations from the Assistant Postmaster-General that are quite specific so far as the powers of the Postmaster-General are concerned. In the debate on television development and Government policy on 14th December, 1953, he used these specific words:
What I have said is that the code which the corporation will lay down "—
that name has been altered—
 as to be approved by the PostmasterGeneral"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1953; Vol. 522, c. 56.]
That is specific. Then, in Committee on the Bill, on 20th May of this year, he said:
I would remind hon. Members that the whose code of advertisement has not only to be agreed by the Authority but approved by the Postmaster-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2334.]
The hon. Gentleman's honour is involved. If he wants to get out of it the only way to do so, though it is not a very meritorious way of getting out of it, is to apologise to the House; to explain that he said things he ought, not to have said, or that he said them believing they were capable of application but now he is convinced they are not; and he should humbly apologise to the House. Or, following the last Minister of Agriculture, he ought to make that his last speech in office, and he should resign forthwith—as Lord Woolton also ought to have resigned as the supervising Minister for food and


agriculture. I forgot him the other day. However, I must not pursue that or I shall be out of order.
Those are two specific promises made by the Assistant Postmaster-General. Surely we are not asking too much when we ask that, as he promised, this should be subject to the approval of the Postmaster-General and be embodied in a Statutory Instrument that can at least be challenged by Prayer on a negative basis in the House. Those are two specific, clear promises, and I ask the Government in these circumstances to accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I ask the Home Secretary, who is a member

of the Cabinet and has higher authority than the Assistant Postmaster-General, to accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment and so clear the Government of what otherwise will be a reflection upon them, in view of the very clear undertakings that were given.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment," put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 270: Noes, 241.

Division No. 211.]
AYES
[10.4 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hurd, A. R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, w)


Alport, C. J. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Drewe, Sir C.
Iremonger, T. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jennings, Sir Roland


Baldock, Lt.-C.mdr J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Banks, Col. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Barber, Anthony
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kaberry, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Erroll, F. J.
Kerr, H. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fell, A.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Finlay, Grarme
Lambton, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Legh, Hon. Peter (Peterstield)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fort, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A.T


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lindsay, Martin


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreoambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bishop, F. P.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir David Maxwell
Llewellyn, D. T.


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert


Braine, B. R.
Glover, D.
Low, A. R. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Godber, J. B
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth S)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Gomme-Duncan, Col[...]
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gower, H. R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G.T
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclecd, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Carr, Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold(Bromley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre, A.V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Channon, H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow,[...].)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionet
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Higgs, J. M. C
Maude, Angus


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Crouch, R. F.
Holt, A. F.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Crowder, Sir John (Finchlev)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Crowder, Petre (Ruslip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Neave, Airey


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholls, Harmar


Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)




Nield, Basil (Chester)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, W.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Oakshott, H. D.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Odey, G. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Russell, R. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Tilney, John


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W
Touche, Sir Gordon


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Scott, R. Donald
Turner, H. F. L.


Osborne, C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Turton, R. H.


Page, R. G.
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Perkins, Sir Robert
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wall, Major Patrick


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pitman, I. J.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Powell, J. Enoch
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wellwood, W.


Profumo, J. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ramsden, J. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Storey, S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Redmayne, M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)
Wood, Hon. R.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Studholme, H. G.



Renton. D. L. M.
Summers, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridsdale, J. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Mr. Vosper and Mr Wills




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Adams, Richard
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins R. H. (Stechford)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fienburgh, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Balfour, A.
Finch, H. J
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bartley, P.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Benn, Hon Wedgwood
Forman, J. C
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones T. W. (Merioneth)


Beswick, F.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Keenan, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Freeman, peter (Newport)
Kenyon, C.


Blackburn, F.
Gaitskell. Rt. Hon H. T. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W
King, Dr. H. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Glanville, James
Lawson, G. M.


Boardman, H
Gooch, E. G
Lee Frederick (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lee Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowden, H. W.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lever, Le[...]l[...]e (Ardwick)


Bowles, F. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Lewis, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grey, C. F.
Lindgren, G. S.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Linton Lt. Col. M


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacColl, J. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
McGhee, H. G.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Vallay)
McGo[...]ern J


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W,)
McLeavy, F.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hamilton, W. W
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Carmichael, J.
Hannan, W
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Hargreaves, A
Mallalieu J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Champion, A. J
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mann. Mrs. Jean


Chapman, W. D
Hastings, S.
Manuel, A. C


Clunie, J.
Hayman. F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Mason, Roy


Cove, W. G
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)
Mayhew, C. P


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hewitson, Capt M
Messer, Sir F


Crossman, R. H. S
Hobson, C. R
Mikardo, Ian


Cullen, Mrs. A
Holman, P.
MitchiSon, G. R


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holmes Horace
Monslow, W


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Houghton Douglas
Moody, A. S


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
H[...]d[...] on, James (E[...]ling. N.)
Morley, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mort, D. L.


Dodds, N. N
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Hynd, J. B. (Attereliffe)
Mulley, F. W







Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Ross, William
Tomney, F.


Oldfield, W. H
Royle, C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Oliver, G. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Usborne, H. C.


Orbach, M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Viant, S. P.


Oswald, T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wallace, H. W.


Padley, W. E.
Short, E. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Paget, R. T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Pannell, Charles
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Pargiter, G. A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Parker, J.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Parkin, B. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wigg, George


Paton, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Peart, T. F.
Snow, J, W.
Willey, F. T.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Porter, G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Steele, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Proctor, W. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Pryde, D. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wyatt, W. L.


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Yates, V. F.


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K,


Richards, R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thornton, E.
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Timmons, J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 36, leave out "them" and insert "the Authority."

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The word "them" was ambiguous and might have referred either to the advisory committees or to the Authority. It is now quite clear that it is the Authority that is referred to.

Clause 7.—(GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER AUTHORITY AS TO CERTAIN MATTERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 13, after "them" insert:
and as to the hours of the day in which such broadcasts are or are not to be given.

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides that the Postmaster-General may give directions to the Authority as to the actual hours of broadcasting, as opposed to the powers which he has already in regard to the maximum and minimum hours.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is in addition?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, this is in addition. In Committee there was an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) to delete the powers of the Postmaster-General over the hours of broadcasting, but we thought that that was a matter over which the Postmaster-General should have control. The new powers are similar to those which the Postmaster-General has over the B.B.C. It does not mean that the hours broadcast by the B.B.C. will be the same for the new Authority, but the Amendment gives to the Postmaster-General authority to decide what hours the new Authority shall broadcast. We felt that this was a reasonable provision.

Mr. Shackleton: I hope that hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side will have taken careful note of what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said. Judging by their anxieties, they listened to his words. Clearly, this is a most desirable power that should be taken by the Postmaster-General. I think it would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides that it should be used discreetly, but that if for any social reason whatever it should be necessary to control the hours, the Postmaster-General, whoever he may be, will not be afraid to use the power. That was quite clearly the purpose as expressed in another place. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-


General will pass on the views of this House also that we hope the Postmaster-General will use these powers firmly when necessary.

Mr. Fell: I should like to ask one or two questions in connection with the Amendment. I am not clear that where the B.B.C. is concerned the Postmaster. General does, in fact, possess these powers regarding maximum and minimum hours and the hours of the day at which broadcasts will or will not be given. Second. I am not quite clear of the intention as to how these powers are to be used and for what reason the Amendment has been brought forward and has Government backing. I should like my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General to give a little more information about the Amendment, because at the moment it is far from satisfactory.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to point out that one of the purposes is to secure that there is not too much broadcasting for children between 6 and 7.30 p.m., which could happen if these powers were not in the background and were not used.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I support the point made by my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Home Secretary will assure us that these powers given to the Postmaster-General to control the times of broadcasting by the new Television Authority will most definitely include a control by the Postmaster-General over the hours of broadcasting to children. I do not think there is any more important aspect of this matter. We all know the influence that television has over the child audience, and if the Postmaster-General does not exercise these powers over the children's programmes of the new Authority, there will be a tremendous incentive for the advertisers to seek to put out advertisements along with children's broadcasts between the hours of 6 and 7.30 p.m. when at the moment the B.B.C. sends out no programmes.
Every parent knows the difficulty in detaching the child from the television screen, and it is for this reason that the B.B.C. does not send out a television programme during that time. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to reassure

us and will promise us that proper control will be exercised in this important matter.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: In view of what has just been said, I should be obliged if the Home Secretary would give us a firm assurance that he is not intending, nor is it in the minds of the Government, to use this power in the way suggested by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nothing could be worse. The new Authority has been given the use of a wavelength, of capital equipment, and the rest of it. If this power is used in that way to prevent it from going ahead, nothing could be worse. Who are to be the judges of what children shall look at between 6.30 and 7, the parents or the Postmaster-General? It was for this very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) was anxious about it, and so I hope we shall have an assurance, first, that the new Authority will not be tied to the hours of the B.B.C. and, secondly, that the power will not be used in that way.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: First I will deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend as to the position comparable with the B.B.C. This power is similar to one which the Postmaster-General has over the B.B.C. under Clause 15 (1) of the 1952 licence and agreements. With regard to the general position, I said when we were discussing this question that how many hours a day television should function was a social matter over which the Government ought to keep control. Here I am quoting myself, and I recognise the inferiority of the quotation.
There was considerable feeling on this point, and I felt that the power ought to be there, and that is why the power exists. I do not want to suggest, and nobody suggests, that there need be an exact coincidence between the powers of the Authority and those of the B.B.C. We expect them both to be responsible bodies. I feel, however, that this is a matter on which the Government must have permissive powers, and so we have taken powers in this case. There is no reason to assume from the taking of the powers that we wish undue interference. As I have indicated, it is simply a matter of protection which we believe ought to exist.

Mr. Thomson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say something about the children's programmes?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is one of the matters which can be considered. It is a matter which can be taken into account. I think that it is quite clear that that was one of the matters which animated the minds of everyone.

Sir L. Plummer: I think that from these benches we ought to say how much we appreciate the socially progressive speech of the Home Secretary, and how encouraged we have been at this late hour to find this really magnificent expression of the determination of the Government to protect the young, the feeble and the unprotected.
What will be quite clear is that the air will hate a vacuum, and that if the B.B.C. is not operating at any time, the advertisers will try to obtain that time. Clearly what the advertisers and the programme companies will get under this Bill is the minimum amount of competition with each other; and they will want to get also the minimum amount of competition with the B.B.C., because they fear that the B.B.C. will put on better programmes than their own. Under those circumstances it is very desirable, in the interests of the competition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires so much, that they should compete with the B.B.C. by being on the air at the same time. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will keep that in mind when discussing the matter with the Authority.

Mr. Philip Bell: I can quite understand that in the circumstances it is desirable that, as happens in the B.B.C., there should be some control over the hours. But I hope—though I rather fear it, from the smiles on the faces of the tigers— that this power given to the Postmaster-General will be used to save the B.B.C. from competition. As long as it is used for the purposes suggested, that is for the well being generally, but it should not be used to protect the B.B.C., so that its programmes will not be interfered with, or that the Independent Authority shall not be allowed to work 24 hours a day because the B.B.C. prefers to work eight hours a day.
If, without disturbing the children, the Independent Authority likes to put on something for the miners who come off

the last shift, it must not be stopped because the B.B.C. is unable to provide for the miners. I hope that this power will not be used to protect the B.B.C.

Clause 13.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 8, leave out "Accountant and Auditors" and insert "Accountants."

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment arising from the fact that the name of the, society has been changed to that in the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the Home Secretary, or the Assistant Postmaster-General, what they thought that the original words meant? What is a "single incorporated accountant" which accountant has been selected for this curious honour, and why have they added "auditors" when they do not appear in the name of the society at all? Why do not the Government take the trouble to find out the proper name of the body which they propose to charge with quite important functions?

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(RULES AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, leave out lines 21 to 31 and insert:
rules (to be agreed upon from time to time between the Authority and the Postmaster-General, or settled by the Postmaster-Genera/ in default of such agreement) shall he observed—


(a) as to the interval which must elapse between any two periods given over to advertisements;
(b) as to the classes of broadcasts (which shall in particular include the broadcast of any religious service) in which advertisements may not be inserted, and the interval which must elapse between any such broadcast and any previous or subsequent period given over to advertisements."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This Lords Amendment must be divided. There is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon


Walker) to the second half of the Amendment which proposes to insert words. The House must first agree to leave out lines 21 to 31.
So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out lines 21 to 31, agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words proposed to be inserted by the Lords, in line 8. after "service," to insert:
or of any matter intended for children or young persons.
I think it would not be altogether irrelevant if I referred to a rumour that is spreading that J. Fred Muggs has descended on Paris. He realises that this Bill is reaching its last stages, and he is no doubt interested in the provisions that will be made in it for children's programmes. If the Amendment I am moving is inserted at the right place, the effect would be to keep advertisements out of the programmes intended for children.
I was glad to see the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary stood up bravely against the attacks from his flank about the protection of children's programme in the matter of hours and duration of broadcasts. Therefore, I am confident that he will accept the Amendment which has the same purpose, namely, to protect the children in regard to the content of the programme and not merely the duration and the timing. I think the Home Secretary will agree that this is in no way out of accord with the last Amendment. This Amendment is an important one.
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that in paragraph (b) the reference is to "classes" in the plural. It says:
 …. the classes of broadcasts … in which advertisements may not be inserted ….
So there are to be classes of programmes, and one that is specified appears in the last Lords Amendment which we approved. It is firmly the intention of the Bill that there will be others as well as religion, and, if that is so, what better class to safeguard from advertisements than children's programmes. It is a tradition in this country that we take steps to protect our children. We have special certificates for films and all sorts of

things like that, and, in fact, we do not allow the full play of private enterprise to work where our children and their interests are concerned.
Children are going to be extremely important in this matter, because they are an extremely important market from the point of view of the advertisers. It has been discovered that one of the best ways of selling goods is to incite the children to want them and then they will pester their parents to get them. That is what has happened in the United States, and it will happen here.
In the United States—and I do not see why it should not happen here—there has been a tendency for these programmes to deteriorate, and programmes which are supposed to be attractive to children concentrate on murders and brutalities. I was reading in a newspaper the other day that in one town in America things were so bad that the parents banded together and set up a voluntary panel to count the number of murders that occurred in one week's broadcast. They found some fantastic figure and they made representations about it.

Mr. Philip Bell: Why do they not make representations to the children about it?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Ali Baba was responsible for 40 murders.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I only hope that they will not advertise any gin in the children's programmes.

Mr. Walter Elliot: That is an uncalled for remark. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) made a perfectly legitimate interruption about which there was nothing objectionable. It concerned Ali Baba and the 40 thieves, and I think if the sort of the remark used by the right hon. Gentleman for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in reply is going to be hurled across the Floor of the House, there are wounding observations which we on this side of the House can use about hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I thought for a moment that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) was in the Chair and was controlling what it was right and proper to say in this debate.

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) used an argument which I knew was coming. He asked why we did not let the parents control what their children should hear. In an earlier debate the hon. Member suggested that we should provide locks on television sets so that parents should lock them up. Why should this extra burden be placed upon parents? Nobody says that television sets should be locked up now, and certainly the risk of advertising does not now exist.
I hope that in this connection we shall not hear the argument that we should not tie the I.T.A. That argument cannot be used with any logic against our Amendment to the Lords Amendment, because the I.T.A. is already being tied as regards religious programmes. In other words, we are not trusting the programme contractors with religious programmes and therefore we have made a special provision in respect of those programmes. We are tying the discretion of the I.T.A. in that respect and giving it instructions. Therefore, it cannot be said that we should not do this for the children, on the ground that we should not tie the I.T.A. If we are not to trust the programme contractors with religious programmes and services, we should not trust them with advertisements in children's programmes. One cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Elliot: The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) set himself up before the House in his last few minutes as a censor of taste. He did so after displaying one of the grossest pieces of discourtesy and bad taste. Later, he refused to give way. Furthermore, he said that as this was not a question of order he did not think that I had any reason to comment upon it. He said that he thought that Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair looking after matters of order and not myself. I do not deny that or demur from it in the least, but if everything was to get past except what is ruled out of order by the Chair this place would be a very much poorer debating Chamber.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: On a point of order. Do
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order, or is he participating in this debate? Up to the moment, all that the right hon. Gentleman has done has been to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) was not rising to a point of order. I called him and I was hoping that he would come to the Amendment to the Lords Amendment very soon.

Mr. Elliot: I was coming very closely to the point. The right hon. Member for Smethwick set himself up as a censor of taste. That was the burden of his speech, and, of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite object to the cut and thrust of debate. We need not be surprised at that. They cannot take it, they are only interested in handing it out.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. How long is a right hon. Gentleman allowed to continue when he loses his temper and does not come to the point?

Mr. Elliot: We will leave the question of losing one's temper to the hon. and learned Member, whose temper is not always of the most controlled.
The right hon. Gentleman has invalidated the whole case which he put to the House by the argument which he used to support it. If there is anyone who is capable of advancing arguments about taste it is not the right hon. Gentleman, judging by the taste of his speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt? If he does, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was not setting myself up as an arbiter of taste. I was hoping that the I.T.A. would be set up as an arbiter of taste.

Mr. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman complained that those who would have the operation of these facilities would not come up to his high and exacting standard of taste. I say that, judged by the high and exacting standard of taste set by the right hon. Gentleman tonight, I hope that the ordinary programme contractor, the ordinary advertiser, the


ordinary adviser, will be able to come up to and surpass that standard of taste. I have no doubt whatever that they will be able to do so.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend moved the Amendment in moderate terms, and I should like to say a few words in support of what he said. One of the most unattractive features of the Government's conduct in the whole controversy has been the way in which, from beginning to end, they have accepted the right of commercial advertisers to advertise direct to children. We are not concerned here with advertising to adults, with advertising to parents; the result of the Amendment would be to prohibit direct advertising to children on television by commercial advertisers.
My right hon. Friend has indicated the pressure which children can bring on their parents, and I want to suggest that another reason that the advertisers are so keen to obtain this right is the susceptibility of children to entertainment of this kind. That seems to me to be the reason that commercial interests are pressing for this right to advertise to children and the reason that the Government are refusing to accept our Amendment. Children are easy meat for commercial advertisers. I suggest that those who can believe in Santa Claus can also believe in the fairy stories of commercial advertisers very easily.

Mr. Philip Bell: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view—perhaps it is his experience —that parents are easy meat for their children?

Mr. Mayhew: I certainly agree that they are.
As my right hon. Friend said, part of the purpose of advertising on children's programmes is not only to advertise to admittedly the most susceptible people—the children themselves—but also to get at parents through their children, as is done all over the United States today. Children are particularly susceptible—and, again, commercial advertisers know this—to pictures; by pictures rather than by words is the way to persuade a child, and television therefore gives the advertisers an opportunity which they have not had before of selling their goods and of persuading children by means of the television screen.
In my view, the use of television for commercial advertisers to squeeze pennies out of children is a contemptible thing. That is not what television is for. For the Government to put this forward betrays a terrible lack of a sense of values. In America today we find not only the innocence of children exploited in this way; the advertisers also make a study of the psychological characteristics of children so as to make their advertising appeal more effective. For example, everybody knows that children like collecting, so the American advertisers—and the British advertisers will follow suit—gear their advertising appeal to children in order to exploit this characteristic. When they invite children to collect the tops of Coca-Cola bottles in the United States it is not because they know that the children will enjoy collecting them; this is a way devised by hard-headed business men to stop those children from drinking ginger beer. That is what is behind it.
10.45 p.m.
To calculate the characteristics of children and to use them in order to sell commercial goods is a misuse of television. I therefore ask the Government to accept our Amendment. Maybe they will lose a little revenue; maybe the advertising contractors and the programme companies will suffer a little, but at least it will mean that we are getting what the British public asks for, and that is that the programmes should be as British in type as possible.

Mr. George Wigg: It is a little surprising, although apparently the Government see nothing wrong in it, that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) should have sunk to the level he has reached tonight. Since 1951, when he was not given an office, and he has had to perform a begging trick, there has been no Privy Councillor in this House who has abused his position more than the right hon. Member. Hon. Members, one after another, have suffered—and I am one of them, although I have not complained but am giving it back tonight —by his using his position as a Privy Councillor and getting up immediately after they have spoken—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I would remind the hon. Member that the Chair is responsible for


calling upon an hon. or right hon. Member to speak.

Mr. Wigg: You may be responsible for calling upon an hon. Member, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. Member is alone responsible for what he says, and once again tonight he has got up and given the sort of stock performance to which we have become accustomed. He has far too good a mind, and once upon a time, he was far too good a man, to allow himself to indulge in the sort of speech he has made tonight. But now he is acting merely as an apologist for an unspeakable and disreputable lot —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot link any of this to the Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. Wigg: The real reason for his performance is, without doubt, that there is one certain vacancy in the Government, and we are told that there is another one to come. What he thinks—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we have had enough of this. I have stopped the hon. Member before, and he must get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I am endeavouring to get back to it. What it is about is the use of commercial television so as to persuade little children to part with their pennies. The right hon. Member does not object to that because he has managed to swallow a good many things in the past three years; but tonight he has reached absolute bottom.

Mr. Gammans: I hope that, after that performance, the House will forgive me if I deal with the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. There are two categories with which we are concerned. The first category is the broadcast for schools, and I cannot imagine advertisers being associated with such broadcasts. For one thing, before the broadcast to a school can be arranged, it will be necessary for the school authorities to agree to such a broadcast, and I do not imagine that they would want advertisers concerned in such a programme.
Furthermore, the school broadcasts will be of that class for which my right hon. Friend has particular responsibility, and I do not imagine that he would be prepared to allow a broadcast for schools

in such circumstances. Then there is the school programme which is not so much for education as for entertainment, and, as I said during the Committee stage of the Bill, I do not see anything basically wrong in having selected advertisements at the beginning and the end of a children's programme. That is the view the Government hold.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) took the attitude that all advertisements for children are bad. I would ask the House to have some sense of proportion and a sense of realism in considering this matter. For example, the "Children's Newspaper" which, we all agree, is a good one, has advertisements. I see in the edition this week that there are advertisements for pencil boxes, stamps, cheese labels—whatever they may be—razor blade knives, tents, telescopes; and there is a large advertisement for bubblegum. The B.B.C. apparently sees nothing basically wrong—

Mr. Mitchison: I was under the impression that religious newspapers also contained advertisements. Am I wrong?

Mr. Gammans: I am coming to that.

Mr. Gordon Walker: What is the hon. Gentleman going to say about it?

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman must wait and listen. I am dealing with the B.B.C. at the moment. The B.B.C. sees nothing wrong in having in the "Radio Times" advertisements on the same pages as those setting out the children's programmes. If hon. Members like to look at this week's "Radio Times" they will see advertised on the same page with the children's programme for one day a great many things ending with Bemax for breakfast. The children's papers, "Eagle" and "Girl," which are, I think, highly esteemed, and, I believe, edited by a clergyman, have advertisements for chewing gum, sweets, and harmonicas; and there is a give-away competition by Kellogg's for a 'bicycle. Therefore, we cannot possibly agree with the basic proposition of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East that advertisements are bad basically for children.
Our attitude is that the advertisements have to be selected advertisements, that they have to be under some sort of control—

Mr. Gordon Walker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with advertising in religious newspapers, because advertisements are forbidden in religious programmes. If he does not deal with that point, all that he has said so far will be irrelevant.

Mr. Gammans: There is a great difference between religious newspapers and religious services.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Between religious newspapers and religious propaganda?

Mr. Gammans: Religious newspapers are published by sects to advertise those sects—or most of them are. They publish them for propaganda. There is nothing wrong in that, but basically there is a difference between reading a religious newspaper and attending a religious service.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that the advertisements in connection with the children's programmes will not be directly linked by the new Authority with any of the children's programmes, in the same way as they are in children's magazines. For instance, in connection with a character in a story in a magazine are advertisements for toy guns or Wild West outfits, and so on. It would be thoroughly deplorable if that sort of thing were allowed in the broadcast programmes. Will the Advisory Committee censor the advertisements in the children's programmes as well as the programmes themselves?

Mr. Gammans: I must remind the hon. Member of one of the basic principles of the Bill, and that is that advertisements are kept separate from programmes. Our attitude is that there is nothing wrong in advertisements but that they should be under some sort of control and subject to some sort of advice.
There is another side to the question that we cannot entirely ignore if we have the children's interests at heart. If programmes are not to be financed by advertising they can be paid for only out of the £750,000 voted by the House. That is not an immense sum of money, and there are many other claimants for it—for example, the religious programmes;

we have been pressed to accept party political broadcasts, which would cost money; royal occasions, and so on. If we exclude advertisements from children's programmes, we might very well finish up with hardly any children's programmes at all.
I would suggest that the position is not as the right hon. Gentleman suggested when he dragged in the United States. Always he brings in the United States when it suits his argument. he knows perfectly well the type of system we have here has not the slightest analogy to that of the United States.
The position regarding children's programmes is well safeguarded. They are classes of programmes from which any advertisements can, if necessary, either be banned or regulated by the Postmaster-General himself. There is an advertisement advisory committee, which is mandatory, and there is now the children's advisory committee, which is also mandatory, which deals specifically with programmes designed for children.
I suggest that any advertisement which has got through these three sieves can certainly be regarded as innocuous, and that the fears that advertisements in children's programmes can do harm are entirely illusory. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. William Warbey: I am sure that after the alarming speech of the Assistant Postmaster-General my hon. Friends will think it very desirable to press the Amendment to a Division, because the effect of what he said is that the Government are really quite anxious that this time shall be used to provide additional revenue for the advertisers.
One of the most alarming features of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his reference, not only to programmes of the Children's Hour type, but also to broadcasts to schools. I do not know what the Minister of Education may have to say about this, but, since she and the Assistant Postmaster-General have done their best to stop the B.B.C. from running a school television service, it is rather extraordinary to learn at this late hour that the Government are in favour of this commercial body running a school television service.
There is certainly no safeguard whatsoever in the suggestion the Assistant Postmaster-General made that advertisements would not appear in school teleclasses because they will be made by arrangement with local authorities. As he knows very well, if school television services are arranged, they must be arranged to cover wide areas. They must be arranged, not in conjunction with specific local authorities, but by arrangements covering a whole series of programmes, covering a whole number of authorities, and once those arrangements have been made, there is nothing but this very inadequate series of sieves to which he referred to prevent advertisements being slipped into these programmes.
The whole purpose of this Bill has been to enable the commercial advertisers to set up bill-posting sites in every drawing room, and I must say that if the Government have now aimed at setting up bill-posting sites in class rooms as well, that is going pretty far. It is bad enough when the money-grabbers push their dirty snouts into private homes, but if they are going to push their snouts into schools as well it is high time we tried to see that this matter was put under proper control. I hope we are to have this looked at again otherwise we shall see the whole thing reduced to an even more degrading process than some of us had believed.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. L. Hale: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I regard the speech made by the Assistant Postmaster-General as the most discouraging of all the announcements he has made during the whole series of debates on this Bill. I should like to say why. I shall deal with the interjection by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), who referred to the parents and said, "Do we not trust the parents?"

Mr. Philip Bell: No.

Mr. Hale: That was the burden of what he said. I will give way if he wants to challenge me.

Mr. Bell: Before we exchange these reminiscences about what was said, let us be accurate or not refer to them at all.

Mr. Hale: I was not proposing to exchange reminiscences. I was telling the

hon. and learned Member, in the observations he made, how little he appreciated the importance of this question when he was talking about the parents and made the suggestion that we could not trust the parents in this matter. He was suggesting that if they have television by the Authority they have to sit there and switch it off if they find that there is something deleterious to their interests or those of the children. I should have thought that if television was to be of any advantage at all it was to leave the children looking at it comfortably and carry on with cooking the dinner for the old man when he comes home from the House.

Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman believes that and he has children, what does he do with the "News of the World"?

Mr. Hale: I have children, but I do not take the "News of the World," so that has nothing to do with it. I could suggest what I would do with the "News of the World" if I did take it, but I do not think the House would wish me to enter into that. My youngest child is 23, and is very much more competent to look after his affairs than I am, and tends to look after me.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hale: I know my son and the hon. and learned Gentleman does not. I suggest on this question of children's advertisements that the Assistant Postmaster-General really has been ingenuous, to put it at its least, and certainly I think he has handled the truth so lightly that it was in danger of coming to pieces in his hands, because, in the course of previous debate, when he was challenged about whether there would be religious broadcasts in children's programmes, and who would pay for them or whether they would be paid for, he said that there are other resources and advertisers who want to attract a galaxy of audiences of various types would have to pay for various types of programmes. And now, in today's debate on this Bill, he said, "Oh, well, of course it can all come out of the £750,000, which will have to come out of the advertisers."
What the Assistant Postmaster-General means apparently is that Hopalong Cassidy will not have "Buy Bemax" or


"Fried Cod" on his shirt. We shall put the advertisements at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, or in an interval, and advertisers are going to pay for them, and they are going to say, subject to any moral code and the views of the Postmaster-General, if he has any, that these advertisements were paid for as part of the programme. He now says the advertisers will put on the children's programme, and the advertisers will pay for it, and the advertisers will not say, "Now this is an advertisement we are putting over as part of the children's programme."
I want to put an important point on this matter. A great many people attach a great deal more importance to paying for a television set—[Interruption.] I personally am prepared to sell my television set cheaply to anyone who wants to buy it today. [HON. MEMBERS: "How
cheaply?"] I was just trying to liquidate the outstanding indebtedness of hire purchase instalments and decide whether my wife had any interest in the arrangement, and whether, in making the offer, I was not exceeding my domestic powers.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Members must keep the advertisements distinct from the programmes.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. In deference to the obvious wish of the House, I will withdraw the offer. I want the House to consider this point seriously, because it is important. A great many people attach importance to television, a great many people are spending rather more than they can afford to acquire a set, a great many people will go to the extra expense of getting the alternative programme, and others will have committed themselves to spending a great deal of money, partly because they think it is good for them and good for their children and keeps people at home and because it is a medium of importance.
I ask hon. Members to be serious about this, because we are talking about the home, about the institution which is a special foundation of our national life. What the Assistant Postmaster-General is now saying is that we shall throw open the doors of our houses, the dining rooms, the little lounges, the sitting

rooms in the little houses in Oldham to a medium whereby a great deal of sales pressure can be put upon children, and with a snob bias; so that the advertiser can say, "Some children have a posh school uniform, you have not, why don't you persuade your parents to buy you one?"; so that the advertiser can say, "Some children have a really good satchel, why don't you persuade your parents to buy you one?"
Everybody knows that this is precisely the sort of advertisement that will be put over. In the previous debate it appeared that all the advertising agents came from one side of the House, and it was suggested that all were corrupt and dishonest. Well I am about the only director of an advertising company who sits on this side of the House, and so I do not speak free from bias. I am a director of Mass Observation Limited, which has a certain social connotation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Advertising!"] I do not need to advertise it; it is a name that advertises itself. I am putting the problem fairly before the House. Only in the last 10 minutes has it been said frankly that this will happen. Until then we have had a muddled series of explanations to the effect that there will not be much advertising to children, that somehow or other it will be separated from the main programmes urging people to buy Bemax or frozen cod.
This is a serious problem, and I warn the Assistant Postmaster-General that there will be serious repercussions if he does not try to have some sort of control which will prevent the exploitation of the privilege that is being given to the I.T.A. to walk uninvited into every house in the Kingdom and to play upon the natural desire of children to appear as well-dressed and well-equipped as their fellows, and to go to school with rulers, with compasses, with geometry sets, with all the things children like to have, and which not every child in the country can have. It is a serious matter, and we are entitled to a little more information on the point.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the words proposed to be inserted by the Lords," put, and negatived.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF RENT ACTS WHERE TENANT RETAINS POSSESSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 8, at end, insert:
(5) Subsections (1) and (2) of section twenty-three of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, shall not apply where the standard rent of the dwelling-house (within the meaning of that section) is a rent agreed or determined in accordance with the next following section.

11.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment secures that the standard rent fixed under Part I cannot be increased by a "repairs increase" under the Housing Repairs and Rent Act. I do not think that there is any controversy about this.

Clause 7.—(SETTLEMENT OF TERMS OF STATUTORY TENANCY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 32, leave out "and" and insert:
(d) whether initial repairs to be so carried out are to be carried out by the landlord or by the tenant, or which of them are to be carried out by the landlord and which by the tenant; and.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I should be glad of your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I shall have your approval of the way in which I intend to deal with this problem. This is the first of 17 Amendments which the Government moved on the Report stage in another place to meet a point raised by the Opposition in another place during the Committee stage. I hope it will not be transgressing the rules of order if I deal with the general point on the first Amendment, and then I think that a number of the Amendments can be dealt with as consequential.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection to that if the House agrees.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As the Bill left this House, under Clause 8 (3) it was open to the landlord and the tenant, when the long lease was terminated, to agree that the tenant should carry out the initial repairs. The court had no power to determine that they should be carried out by the tenant. As a result, the tenant could not carry out the initial repairs except with the landlord's consent.
In Committee in another place the Opposition suggested that, where the parties were unable to agree, the tenant should have the right to ask the court, and the court should, in its discretion, be prepared to determine that the tenant, and not the landlord, should do the initial repairs. The tenant was not to be able to insist on the right to do them. He would be able to make out his case to the court, and the court would make such determination as it thought fit. This series of Amendments produces this result. I appreciate the reasons advanced. In many instances the tenant could do some of the repairs, for example, internal repairs, himself more cheaply than by employing a builder. It seems wrong to deny him this way of reducing his liability unless there are special circumstances. On the other hand, the tenant may believe that his builder can do it more cheaply than the landlord's.
The argument on the other side is that ex hypothesi the tenant failed during the tenancy to carry out the repairs for which he was liable, and the landlord should have the right to decide how the initial repairs should be carried out. There will be different sets of circumstances in a variety of cases, and therefore we accepted the suggestion of the Opposition that the matter could best be left to the court's discretion, and each party would be at liberty to make his case.
The rather formidable number of Amendments is needed, in part, because there ceases to be any point in retaining the conception of the tenant's initial repairs. The term "initial repairs" will cover repairs by either landlord or tenant,

11.15 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I certainly think that the change which the Home Secretary is introducing by this Amendment is an undoubted improvement. We have fought and argued that it should be open to the tenant when


he is of the opinion that he could do the repairs more cheaply by his own efforts, or by employing labour himself, that he should be allowed to do so. My only comment with regard to this change is that I notice an Amendment later on—page 55, line 30—which seems to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to be closely connected, and indeed integrated, with this Amendment.
As I understand the later Amendment, it has the effect that, supposing the tenant, either by the order of the court or by agreement with the landlord, has undertaken to carry out the repairs and fails to do so, his failure shall be regarded as a ground for expelling him from possession of the house. It may well be argued by the Home Secretary that if the tenant does not carry out the repairs there should be some sanction upon him, but I would warn him that we shall certainly want some explanation of the Government's view that the sanction which is to be imposed on the tenant should be so severe as expulsion from his home.
There are, after all, other sanctions which could be imposed. The tenant might be deprived of the right to carry out the repairs wholly or in part if in fact he has failed to comply with the order of the court or the letter of his agreement with the landlord. But, without hearing a further explanation from the Government, we certainly take the view that to expel a tenant from his home, supposing he finds it impossible to carry out his obligations to do repairs, is indeed a severe and over-drastic remedy.
As we have argued on many occasions on earlier stages of the Bill, the tenant may well find himself confronted, besides paying a high rent or market rent for premises he regarded as his home, with the further obligation to carry out repairs which may come to a sum in the region of £50, £100, or £150. Even if he can carry them out himself more cheaply, nevertheless the burden may be very considerable on him.
Therefore, although my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the change which the Home Secretary is introducing, and the succeeding Amendments to which he has referred, we do give him warning at the outset that we will want to hear

somewhat more in justification of this later Amendment which has the unfortunate result I have pointed out.

Mr. Hayman: As one who had a good deal to say on the Committee stage on this particular aspect of the initial repairs, we are very glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman is to meet the point we had in mind when we moved an Amendment that the tenant should have the right to do his own repairs. It really can be a very heavy burden on the tenant to carry out repairs, and as I said then, there are many of us who have had to carry out repairs in our own homes because we cannot afford to pay anyone else to do them.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 1, leave out "d" and insert "e."

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the second in the series of Amendments to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 21, leave out from "shall" to "so" in line 23 and insert:
be made during the currency of the landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy and not earlier than two months after the giving thereof.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient if I said something about the next Amendment to line 26, to leave out paragraph (b), because it is linked with the Amendment now before the House. These two Amendments are not part of the series on initial repairs to which reference has just been made by my right hon. and learned Friend, Clause 7 (5,b) provides that the landlord's application to a count to settle the terms of the statutory tenancy which is to succeed the long tenancy shall not be made later than two months before the date specified in the landlord's notice as the date of termination of the long tenancy. This, however, need not be expressly stated.
Under Clause 7 (2), the landlord's notice lapses two months before the date of termination and he could not anyhow apply to the court after his notice had lapsed. The second of the two Amendments, therefore, omits paragraph (b). In order to draw attention to the fact that the landlord cannot apply to court after his notice has lapsed, the first Amendment makes a slight change in the wording of paragraph (a) of the sub-section, which, as amended, will provide that the landlord's application must be made during the currency of his notice.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

In line 28, leave out "paragraph (b) of ".

Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REPAIRS DURING PERIOD OF STATUTORY TENANCY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 40, leave out "the landlord shall carry out" and insert:
the terms mentioned in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall include the carrying out of

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the third of the series of Amendments on initial repairs and the effect is to make the term "initial repairs" cover those carried out either by the landlord or by the tenant.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 1, at end insert:
and as respects which it has been agreed or determined as aforesaid that they are to be carried out by the landlord

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the fourth of the series of Amendments, and it limits the amount of the "payment for accrued tenant's repairs" which the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant to the reasonable cost of such of the repairs as the landlord, and not the tenant, is to carry out.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 11, to leave out subsection (3).

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the fifth of the series of Amendments on the subject of initial repairs. The subsection which this Amendment leaves out provides for a landlord and a tenant agreeing among themselves that the initial repairs should be carried out by the tenant, and in such cases the repairs are referred to as "tenant's initial repairs." This subsection becomes unnecessary in the new scheme.

Mr. Hale: Why is it unnecessary? I am worried about it. This subsection makes the thing perfectly clear. By leaving it out we leave out all the clarity.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The subsection which we propose to leave out provides for the landlord and the tenant agreeing among themselves the initial repairs to be carried out by the tenant, and in that case the repairs are referred to as the "tenant's initial repairs." That seems unnecessary under the scheme that I have explained to the House.

Mr. Hale: Subsection (3) says:
Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as preventing the making of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant for the carrying out by the tenant at his own expense of repairs (hereinafter referred to as "tenant's initial repairs") specified in the agreement.
If the words in brackets were misleading we could leave them out, but it would still say that subsection (1) would preclude an agreement being made whereby the tenant did his own repairs, which is the thing he may want to do. It seems to me that the subsection was put in for a purpose. It was put in presumably because the Parliamentary draftsman thought that it was possible there was something under subsection (1) which might induce the courts to say that the tenant could not do this by agreement and at his own expense. Therefore, the subsection was put in. Now it is to be left out, and we are asking why it is to be left out. What has


happened to subsection (1), which now makes it necessary to leave out subsection (3)? In other words, what has happened which makes this subsection so drafted that it cannot be construed as preventing the making of such an agreement? We ought to have an explanation as to why this useful subsection (3) has been left out.

Sir F. Soskice: May I press the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General for a reply to what seems a very reasonable request? It is particularly unfortunate that when a perfectly courteous question is addressed to both Ministers both should sit immobile without any indication of a reply.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry if we should appear to be discourteous, but we have established the rule rather strictly not to speak except by leave. My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with the point.

Mr. Hayman: To a layman, the subsection which it is now proposed to leave out seems sensible and seems to give some guidance to the tenant as to whether he might be able to do the job himself.

The Solicitor-General: The subsection is unnecessary because of an Amendment to which we have already agreed. It provides that the notice will state what initial repairs are to be carried out by the landlord and the tenant, and which by the landlord and which by the tenant. Following upon that, other matters dealt with in the notice can be either agreed upon automatically or referred to the court. That being so, it is not necessary now to have a special provision for agreement, because agreement becomes part of the general agreement—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 30, at the end, insert:
in so far as they are to be carried out by the landlord; ".

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the sixth of the series of Amendments on initial repairs. The landlord has to include in his proposals an estimate of the cost of initial repairs. The Amendment secures that the estimate is to cover only the initial repairs which the landlord has to carry out.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 33, leave out from the first "the" to the end of line 34, and insert:
amount of each instalment (subject to any necessary reduction of the last), the time at which the first is to be payable and the frequency of the instalments;".

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was moved by the Government in Committee in another place and is a drafting Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 38, leave out "or tenant's initial repairs."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the seventh of the series of Amendments. The words to be left out become unnecessary as the term "initial repairs" now covers repairs to be carried out by either the landlord or the tenant.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 40, after "landlord" insert "or the tenant."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the eighth of the series. It amends Clause 8 (6), the subsection which introduces the Second Schedule. It is necessary because the Schedule is being widened by a later Amendment in page 55, line 30, to cover cases in which the tenant has failed to carry out the initial repairs which he has agreed to do. At present the Schedule applies only where the landlord fails to carry out the initial repairs.

Sir F. Soskice: I intervene to remind the Home Secretary that we are looking forward to some explanation of the further Amendment to which he referred.

11.30 p.m.

Clause 9.—(PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN DETERMINING TERMS OF STATUTORY TENANCY AS TO REPAIRS AND RENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 11, at end insert:
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section seven of this Act, the court shall not have power to determine that any initial repairs shall be carried out by the tenant except with his consent.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the ninth of the series of Amendments on initial repairs. It is an important Amendment because it ensures that no tenant can be compelled against his will to carry out initial repairs. It is only if the tenant is willing that the court can determine that initial repairs are to be carried out by him.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 17, leave out by the landlord."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the 10th of the series of Amendments on initial repairs. It is purely consequential on earlier Amendments. The words "by the landlord" now become unnecessary as the initial repairs may be carried out by either landlord or tenant.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 28, leave out "by the landlord."

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 40, leave out subsection (5).

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the 12th of the series of Amendments on initial repairs. The subsection which the Amendment leaves out becomes unnecessary.

Clause 14.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT NOT ORDERED TO GIVE UP POSSESSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 30, at end insert:
(6) Where by virtue of subsection (3) or (5) of this section the landlord gives a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy which specifies as the date of termination a date earlier than six months after the giving of the notice, subsection (2) of section seven of this Act shall apply in relation to the notice with the substitution, for references to the period of two months ending with the date of termination specified in the notice and the beginning of that period, of references to the period of three months beginning with the giving of the notice and the end of that period.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will remember that on Report in this House we made a series of Amendments which substantially recast the time-table for negotiation and application to the court. I think,pro tanto at any rate, the Amendments were welcomed by hon. Members opposite. That involved the slight change in the machinery of Part I which is made by this Amendment, and that is why the Government moved it in Committee in another place.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: We are grateful to the Home Secretary for his explanation, but I wonder whether he would carry the matter a little further, because several of us on this side of the House are not certain about the machinery here—and this is largely a matter of machinery. The relevant part of the Amendment reads,
the landlord gives a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy which specifies as the date of termination a date earlier than six months. …
I presume this means that if he gives notice saying that the existing leasehold arrangement must come to an end and that he proposes to offer a statutory tenancy under certain conditions, then, if that period is less than six months, there will be at least a minimum period of negotiation for the landlord and tenant of up to three months. Will this be so in practice? Supposing the landlord merely gave a two months' notice: does that


mean that the parties have actually three months in which to negotiate? If so, it seems to me that the Amendment is rather curiously worded. I may be wrong about this, but I have discussed it not only with hon. Members but also with those interested outside the House and the position is not at all clear.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has reached the right answer. The effect of the Amendment is that where less than six months' notice is given the negotiations can continue until the end of three months from the giving of the notice, which is what the hon. Gentleman said.

Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Lords Amendmen: In page 18, line 35, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment corrects a small error in the Bill. During the Report stage in this House there was a change in Clause 6, and this Amendment should have been made then but was not.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, leave out lines 23 and 24.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the 13th of a series of Amendments defining "tenant's initial repairs."

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 34, leave out from "Acts" to end of line 35.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment, and the words which it is proposed shall be left out are not essential and might be misleading.

Clause 23.—(TENANCIES TO WHICH PART II APPLIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 19, after "tenant" insert "and so employed."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Opposition in another place, during the Committee stage, drafted a probing Amendment on this point and urged that, as the subsection then stood, it was not clear if the words, "for the purposes of a business," which appear in line 19, qualify "the tenant" or "a person employed by the tenant." The intention, of course, is to qualify only the latter, and this is really a drafting Amendment.

Clause 30.—(OPPOSITION BY LANDLORD TO APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 21, leave out paragraph (d)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The paragraph which this Amendment proposes to leave out is the one which gives a landlord the right to oppose a renewal of a tenancy on the ground that the tenant has failed within a reasonable time to accept an option on reasonable terms for a renewal. This paragraph was criticised in another place by a noble Lord, a Member of the Opposition. It was urged that if the option had to be exercised some little time before the end of the tenancy the tenant might have felt unable for some good reason to commit himself then to a renewal for perhaps a substantial term, and that in such a case and also where the failure to exercise the option was due to inadvertence, he should not be unable to obtain a continuation of the tenancy. The suggestion was made that the matter should be left to the courts, but the difficulty is that it does not seem possible to lay down any principle on which such a discretion could be exercised, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be better to delete this paragraph.

Sir F. Soskice: I rise only to thank the Government for having made this change. I must say that it is in striking contrast to their obdurate refusal to make


other changes which we have suggested, but, on behalf of the tenants, one must be thankful for small mercies and I express my gratitude to the Government for having gone at least a little way along the path which we, on this side, have recommended.

Clause 37.— COMPENSATION WHERE ORDER FOR NEW TENANCY PRECLUDED ON CERTAIN GROUNDS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 26, after "precluded" insert:
(whether by subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act)"—[Special Entry.]

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, and the next two on the Paper, are purely drafting Amendments designed to remove possible ambiguity.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to:

In page 28, line 27, leave out "on" and insert "by reason of."

In line 29, leave out "on" and insert "of."

Clause 38.—(RESTRICTION ON AGREEMENTS EXCLUDING PROVISIONS OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 19, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 24 and insert:
(2) Where—
(a) during the whole of the five years immediately preceding the date on which the tenant under a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies is to quit the holding, premises being or comprised in the holding have been occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the occupier or for those and other purposes, and
(b) if during those five years there was a change in the occupier of the premises, the person who was the occupier immediately after the change was the successor to the business carried on by the person who was the occupier immediately before the change."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 38 (2) prevents contracting out of compensation where the tenant's business had been carried out in the tenant's

premises for five years or more. Under Clause 23 it is not necessary that the premises in which the business is carried on should be used exclusively for the purposes of the business. It is sufficient if they are used for those and other purposes, as, for instance, a doctor's waiting room, which is used as such during surgery hours and used by him and his family at other times. This Lords Amendment takes account of this, and assimilates the language of this provision with that of a similar provision in Clause 37 (3) which entitles the tenant to compensation at the double rate if the business has been carried on in the premises for 14 years or more.
This Lords Amendment picks up a point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in the original Bill, on the words
whether by the tenant or by any other person,
and makes it clear that the other person has to be a successor.

Mr. Skeffington: I am very grateful for the reference to me and am glad the wording I suggested has commended itself in such eminent circles.

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 34, leave out
between the landlord and the tenant.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. The reason for leaving out these words is that they suggest that an agreement to exclude the compensation may not be valid unless the landlord who made the agreement is one defined in Clause 43.

New Clause "A."—(TRUSTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 30, at end insert new Clause "A"—
A.—(l) Where a tenancy is held on trust, occupation by all or any of the beneficiaries under the trust, and the carrying on of a business by all or any of the beneficiaries, shall be treated for the purposes of section twenty-three of this Act as equivalent to occupation or the carrying on of a business by the tenant; and in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection—



(a) references (however expressed) in this Part of this Act and in the Ninth Schedule to this Act to the business of, or to carrying on of business, use, occupation or enjoyment by, the tenant shall be construed as including references to the business of, or to carrying on of business, use, occupation or enjoyment by, the beneficiaries or beneficiary;
(b) the reference in paragraph (d) of section thirty-four of this Act to the tenant shall be construed as including the beneficiaries or beneficiary; and
(c) a change in the persons of the trustees shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant.

(2) Where the landlord's interest is held on trust the references in paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of section thirty of this Act to the landlord shall be construed as including references to the beneficiaries under the trust or any of them; but, except in the case of a trust arising under a will or on the intestacy of any person, the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the creation of the interest therein mentioned shall be construed as including the creation of the trust." —[Special entry.]

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause applies Part II of the Bill to cases where either the tenant's interest or the landlord's interest in business premises is held on trust. Subsection (1) deals with the case where the tenant's interest is held on trust. This provision is necessary if Part II is to give protection to the tenant who is a non-profit making body such as a charity. The Leasehold Committee recommended that such bodies should be covered. That was in paragraph 176, and it has been said that the Government accept that recommendation. Also it applies where the tenancy is vested in the personal representive of the deceased person. Without this provision there would be a risk of a business tenancy being excluded from the protection because the tenant died shortly before the end of the tenancy and there had not been time to vest it in the beneficiary under the will.
Subsection (2) applies where the landlord's interest is held on trust. In Clause 30 (1,b) the landlord can obtain possession at the end of a business tenancy to occupy the premises himself. Subsection (2) of the new Clause enables the landlord or his trustee to get occupation. Without this provision it would be impossible in a number of cases, for example, for a charity to get possession to occupy the premises of which it is the

landlord. I do not think this is a controversial matter. I think the Bill requires this addition to fulfil the recommendation to which I have referred.

11.45 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: At any rate in the case in which the tenancy is held on trust I should think that, speaking for myself, the new Clause does improve the Bill. There is no logical reason why charities should be excluded. Equally is there no logical reason why, when the tenant is a beneficiary in trust, he should not have the rights which Part II of the Bill confers upon him.
I feel somewhat more reservation with regard to subsection 2, but the Home Secretary has explained the objects and I have no any strong objection to it. I will simply ask him if he is quite satisfied that, having introduced this change, he has not, as it were, put out of gear the machinery in Part II. If he can tell us that this has been carefully considered, we would be able to accept this.

The Solicitor-General: I can give the right hon and learned Gentleman the assurance that the machinery in this, and the way this new Clause links up with the rest of the Bill, have been very carefully considered before the draft was made.

Clause 41.—(GROUPS OF COMPANIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 38, leave out from "group" to end of line 44 and insert:
occupation by another member of the group, and the carrying on of a business by another member of the group, shall be treated for the purposes of section twenty-three of this Act as equivalent to occupation or the carrying on of a business by the member of the group holding the tenancy; and in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this sub-section—

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: To describe an Amendment which covers some 10 lines and deals with the situation in which groups of companies carry on business in common, and certain complicated inter-company transactions take place, as a drafting


Amendment, without a word in explanation, seems to be treating the matter a little bit sketchily. I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us what the Amendment does. It makes a substantial difference as far as the number of words is concerned in the Bill. I do not suspect anything sinister, but I would like to know what this change does.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Following our practice, and not through any lack of desire of my right hon. and learned Friend to do it, may I help the right hon. and learned Gentleman? This Amendment is required because of the changes that were made in this House in Clause 23 and, in particular, the insertion of subsection (4) of Clause 23, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember.
Clause 41 deals with groups of companies and at present provides that the tenancy is within Part II if it is vested in one member of the group and the premises are occupied for business purposes by another member of the group.
We discussed that on Committee stage. The result of subsection (4) of Clause 23 is that occupation for business purposes is no longer, in all cases, enough to bring the tenancy into Part II, and the subsection excludes certain cases where the business use is in breach of the covenant. The Amendment makes the necessary change in the wording of Clause 41.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 4, leave out "and".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps, I can deal with this Amendment and the next one at the same time, because they are linked together. The second Amendment corrects a small defect in Clause 41. The House will remember that the object of Clause 41 is to put groups of companies as a whole in the same position as a single company, and the Clause as it now stands fails to achieve this object in one respect.
Clause 26 confers the right on the tenant of business premises to take the initiative in having the tenancy replaced by a new tenancy. The right is confined to the tenant under a tenancy which was

granted for a term exceeding one year. Where such a tenancy comes to an end after the Bill has become law, it will be automatically continued under Part II, and the tenant's right to make a request for a new tenancy is preserved by subsection (1) of Clause 26.
Where, however, a tenancy was granted for a term of years and the term expires before the coming into operation of the Bill, the law implies that if the tenant retains possession and the landlord accepts rent a new tenancy from year to year is thereby created. Such a new tenancy would not be within the terms of Clause 26 (1), and therefore would not give rise to a right to request a new tenancy under Part II but for paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule. In other words, paragraph 4 secures that the tenant who holds over after a fixed term tenancy comes to an end will have the right conferred by Clause 26, irrespective of whether the fixed term tenancy came to an end before or after the coming into operation of the Bill.
The notion of the tenant holding over is expressed in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 as a requirement that the tenant under the current tenancy must be the same as, or a successor in business to, the tenant under the fixed term tenancy. It is at this point that a group of companies requires special treatment. If, for instance, after the expiry of the fixed term and before the passing of the Bill a new subsidiary was formed for the purpose of holding all the land belonging to the group and the tenancy was then assigned to that new subsidiary, the requirement that the tenant must be the same would not be fulfilled unless the change of tenant were ignored. The same would apply if the fixed term tenancy was vested in the subsidiary and the subsidiary was for some reason dissolved after the expiry of the term. By ignoring the change of tenant in such cases, the Amendment secures the benefit of paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule to a group of companies.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to:

In page 33, line 7, at end insert:
and
(c) an assignment of the tenancy from one member of the group to another shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant.

Clause 42.—(TENANCIES EXCLUDED FROM PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 18, leave out from "the" to end of line 19 and insert:
restrictions on the obtaining of possession by the landlord imposed by section three of the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, apply in relation to the tenant,

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next really deal with the same point, so perhaps I may explain them both here. The two Amendments were moved by the Government in Committee in another place, and they amend Clause 42 (1,c). That excludes from Part II mixed residential business premises, that is, a shop with a flat above it, which are protected by the Rent Act. These Amendments deal with a case where mixed premises are let to a limited company which sub-lets part for residential premises.
I think it is fair to say that the law is not quite clear, but it appears that the letting is one to which the Rent Acts apply. Nevertheless it was held in Carterv. The S.U. Carburetter Company, which is reported in 1942 (2) King's Bench, page 288, that the company was not entitled to the protection of the Rent Acts in an action for possession by the landlord. And as this is the case the company should get the protection of Part II of the Bill, and the Amendments do that.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 33, line 21, leave out "that Act" and insert:
the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920;".

Clause 52.—(JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT WHERE LESSOR REFUSES LICENCE OR CONSENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 29, leave out "refuses" and insert "withholds."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment to Clause 52, and the purpose is to amend the language.

Clause 56.—(MODIFICATION ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC INTEREST OF RIGHTS UNDER PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 1, leave out from "corporation" to "then" in line 5 and insert:
the Minister or Board in charge of any Government Department may certify that it is requisite for the purposes of the first-mentioned department, or, as the case may be, of the authority, undertakers or corporation, that the use or occupation of the property or a part thereof shall be changed by a specified date.

(2) A certificate under the last foregoing subsection shall not be given unless the owner of the interest belonging or held as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection has given to the tenant a notice stating—

(a) that the question of the giving of such a certificate is under consideration by the Minister or Board specified in the notice, and
(b) that if within twenty-one days of the giving of the notice the tenant makes to that Minister or Board representations in writing with respect to that question, they will be considered before the question is determined,
and if the tenant makes any such representations within the said twenty-one days the Minister or Board shall consider them before determining whether to give the certificate.

(3) Where a certificate has been given under subsection (1) of this section in relation to any tenancy"

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Again if I might mention a series of Amendments and deal with the points which they raise, this and the seven immediately succeeding Amendments to Clause 56 were moved by the Government on Report stage in another place. The Government were in rather a difficult situation here because I had been pressed with great incontinence of words by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) about the position of local authorities when the Bill was in this House. The hon. Gentleman asked me to consider whether I could not lessen the obligations of local authorities. I said that I would try to keep the position as far as I could, but I felt that local authorities should not get possession without the certificate of a Minister who was answerable to this House.
What was my surprise when a distinguished member of the Opposition in another place, Lord Silkin, who is well known for his knowledge and experience of planning problems and had been chairman of the planning committee of


the same local authority as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, took the point that the rights of the individual were not sufficiently protected by the certificate procedure and pressed very strongly in another place that we should go further. In fact, he said that his local authority experience had taught him that local authorities might be just as oppressive as Government Departments.
In these circumstances, I was anxious that there should be as little delay as possible, because I gave the Committee an undertaking that I would do my utmost to prevent delay in getting the certificate. Therefore, I thought it best to take a different line from that which the noble Lord had originally in mind, and go back to the point that the tenant should be given notice of the application for the certificate so that the periods would run together and there would not be a delay.
Therefore, in order to meet this problem—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will appreciate the delicacy of the situation at that time on other matters which were being debated in this House—we compromised for this solution, which did not go as far as we were asked, but meets to some extent the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made that the tenant might otherwise be oppressed by a local authority. These are the circumstances and these Amendments represent our efforts to find a compromise to meet a difficult situation.

Mr. Skeffington: I appreciate the difficulty in which the Government found themselves and no doubt the Home Secretary appreciates my difficulty. The noble Lord in another place who moved the Amendment was, I believe, thinking primarily of statutory undertakers generally, and it was only subsequently that local authorities entered into the picture.
12 midnight.
So far as this Amendment gives a new right to the tenant, I do not think anyone will object to it, particularly as the period in which the tenant has to give notice of any representation he is to make is the short one of 21 days. That is not likely to cause any further delay, which was the point about the procedure of getting a Minister's certifi-

cate which concerned many local authorities. Many of us still regret that it has been thought necessary that this certificate is required in the case of local authorities. As we pointed out in Committee, they do not obtain land for the fun of it, but simply to carry out their statutory obligations. I do not think that the tenant in these cases would have been placed in any real difficulty or be prejudiced, because if he stays over after the local authority has possession, or a new tenant is admitted, they both know that at a certain time, which is within the discretion of the local authority, that body will be able to proceed with the job for which the land or buildings were acquired and they will be required to leave.
The tenant knew from the beginning of the new contract that the tenancy would cease as soon as the local authority was able to proceed with the job. It would, however, be stupid to allow the buildings to remain empty, or the land idle, until such time as a development scheme could proceed: therefore in the past they have been let. Knowing the circumstances in which a tenant will have been allowed, and agreed, to continue in occupation, will the Minister, particularly when a local authority is concerned, be likely to want to come to a decision adverse to the authority on any representation made by a tenant who knew what he was undertaking, and on what condition he was remaining in occupation? If the Minister refuses his certificate in many cases I foresee a first-class constitutional difficulty between the local authorities and the Minister. I want to save the appropriate Ministers from the sort of difficulty into which the Minister of Education is getting through vetoing the specific plans of local education authorities which had already been generally approved.
If, on the other hand, the Minister will give his certificate automatically it would seem that the whole procedure is unnecessary, and I cannot see what representations a tenant could make which would generally affect the Minister's decision. It has been repeatedly pointed out that local authorities only require these properties for statutory purposes. They must, generally speaking, be the best judges of the use to be made of them. The Minister cannot know. They are


subject to the pressure of local opinion, and subject to the district auditor and other superior agencies, and I regard this general procedure as a step backward.
The Government are taking away from local authorities the normal right to enter into property they have purchased and which they have enjoyed up till now under the Housing Act, 1936, and under certain sections of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It is unsatisfactory. I am certain that no one on this side of the House will object to the additional right given to the tenant. This seems a concession to theory. It is the kind of concession which the Government seem ready to make where a public authority is concerned but do not make when a
private landlord is concerned.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to:

In page 41, line 20, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 22 and insert:
(4) Where a tenant makes a request for a new tenancy under section twenty-six of this Act, and the interest of the landlord or any superior landlord in the property comprised in the current tenancy belongs or is held as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) if a certificate has been given under the said subsection (1) in relation to the current tenancy,"

In line 36, at end insert:
(b) if no such certificate has been given but notice under subsection (2) of this section has been given before the making of the request or within two months thereafter, the request shall not have effect, without prejudice however to the making of a new request when the Minister or Board has determined whether to give a certificate."

In line 37, leave out "the court makes an order" and insert "application is made to the court".

In line 40, leave out "then if".

In line 42, leave out "certifies" and insert "may certify".

In line 42, leave out from "interest" to "determine" in line 43 and insert "that if the landlord makes an application in that behalf the court shall".

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 45, leave out from "landlord" to end of line 46 and insert:
Subsection (2) of this section shall apply in relation to a certificate under this subsection, and if notice under the said subsection (2) has been given to the tenant—


(a) the court shall not determine the application for the grant of a new tenancy until the Minister or Board has determined whether to give a certificate.
(b) if a certificate is given, the court shall on the application of the landlord determine as a term of the new tenancy that it shall be terminable as aforesaid, and section twenty-five of this Act shall apply accordingly."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The reference in the Amendment to subsection (2) is to the new subsection (2) which is added by the Amendment at page 41, line 1, and the new subsection provides for the landlord notifying the tenant that the giving of a certificate is under consideration and requires the Minister to consider any representations from the tenant within 21 days of the notification.

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 7, at end, insert:
(4) Where the interest of the landlord or any superior landlord in the property comprised in any tenancy belongs to the National Trust, the Minister of Works may certify that it is requisite, for the purpose of securing that the property will as from a specified date be used or occupied in a manner better suited to the nature thereof, that the use or occupation of the property should be changed; and subsections (2) to (4) of this section shall apply in relation to certificates under this subsection, and to cases where the interest of the landlord or any superior landlord belongs to the National Trust, as those subsections apply in relation to certificates under subsection (1) of this section and to cases where the interest of the landlord or any superior landlord belongs or is held as mentioned in that subsection.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps I might mention the point in this Amendment and the Amendment in line 11 together. They make the certificate procedure of Clause 56 available where the landlord is the National Trust. This is the point which hon. Gentlemen who were on the Committee will remember was raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), and I undertook to consider the point. We have now put the matter into effect.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I should like to thank the Government for putting down this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentle-


man may remember I had some words with him at an earlier stage in the Bill on this matter. He offered to give consideration to what he agreed was the special position of the National Trust. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) had an Amendment down in Committee, but apparently it was rather too simple for the drafting experts. However, we are very well satisfied with the Amendment that has been moved, and I would like to thank the Home Secretary for meeting the representations that were made.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 42, line 11, at end insert:
and in the last foregoing subsection the expression 'National Trust' means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.

Clause 57.—(TERMINATION ON SPECIAL GROUNDS OF TENANCIES TO WHICH PART II APPLIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 16, after "tenancy" insert "or a part thereof."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is little more than drafting, and it is also consequential on a change which was made in Committee in another place in Clause 56. Its purpose is to secure that the procedure whereby statutory undertakers can obtain possession at short notice in order to carry out urgent repairs applies where they require possession of part only of the property comprised in a tenancy. Clause 57 (3) enables the landlord who is a statutory undertaker to make a valid agreement with a tenant that he should give up possession at less than six months' notice, which is the minimum under the Bill for tenants generally, if the Minister certifies that the statutory undertaker needs possession urgently for the purpose of carrying out repairs necessary for the proper carrying on of the undertaking. A typical case would be where an undertaker needed to turn out the tenant of a railway arch in 24 hours in order to carry out repairs which would otherwise make it unsafe for the trains. I think that is a perfectly practical point.

Clause 62.—(JURISDICTION OF COURT FOR PURPOSES OF PARTS I AND II AND OF PART I OF LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 1927.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 4, after "assessor" insert:
shall be at such rate as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Treasury and.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment involves privilege, and if the House agrees with it I shall direct that special entry be made in the Journals of the House.

The Solicitor-General: The Bill as it stands says that the assessors are to be paid out of public funds, but it does not expressly say who would settle on what particular rate of payment. This Amendment covers that small difficulty.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to oppose the Amendment at all, and I shall not keep the House more than a couple of seconds. If we are going to fix these sums, I personally think it is a bad thing to give it to a person with £12,000 a year. It would be far better to leave it to Members of Parliament with their small salaries to fix this. It would be of great aid to the country.

First Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PRO VISIONS AS TO PAYMENTS FOR ACCRUED TENANT'S REPAIRS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 11, to leave out "such greater number of instalments" and insert:
instalments of such smaller amounts.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendments to Clause 8, page 8, line 33.

Second Schedule.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO REPAIR WHERE TENANT RETAINS POSSESSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 30, at end insert:
Failure of tenant to carry out initial repairs

4. Where, by virtue of an agreement or of a determination of the court, the tenant is


required to carry out initial repairs to the dwelling-house, failure by the tenant to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time in accordance with the agreement or determination shall be treated as a breach of the obligations of the tenancy for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1933 (which relates to recovery of possession where the rent has not been paid or any other obligation of the tenancy has not been performed)."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) referred when we had the general discussion on the whole of the series of Amendments dealing with initial repairs. It is an important Amendment and it provides that where a tenant has undertaken to carry out the initial repairs, then failure to do those repairs within a reasonable time shall be treated as a breach of the obligation for the purpose of paragraph (a) of the First Schedule of the Rent Act, 1933.
The effect of this is to give the landlord ground for recovery of possession of the dwelling-houses provided that the court consider it reasonable in the circumstances to grant an order for possession. I emphasise that, provided that the court consider it reasonable in the circumstances to grant an order. A provision of this character is a necessary consequence to enabling the tenant to carry out initial repairs against the landlord's wishes, for it is useless to leave the landlord merely with a right to bring an action for damages because this right may well be abortive.
I submit that the sanction proposed is not calculated to increase the tenant's liability for it imposes upon him no greater burden of repairs than he was willing to carry out at the beginning of the statutory tenancy. His liability for initial repairs must be one which he voluntarily accepts and it would be grossly unfair to the landlord if the tenant, after offering to undertake the repairs, were able to continue in possession whilst wholly neglecting to fulfil the obligation he freely accepted in the recent past.
If he does wholly neglect to fulfil this obligation which he freely accepted quite

recently, then the landlord can seek to obtain possession but he would not get it automatically. The court still has to be satisfied that the grant of a possession order in the circumstances is reasonable, and if the court comes to the conclusion that the landlord is not being reasonable then, of course, the order would not be made.

12.15 a.m.

Sir F. Soskice: Were it not for the fact that, as the Solicitor-General has pointed out, there is the additional safeguard that the court will not make an order unless it thinks it is reasonable in all the circumstances so to do, I certainly would unhesitatingly advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to disagree with the Lords Amendment. As the Solicitor-General has pointed out, it is some consolation to the unfortunate tenant to know that before the landlord can turn him out of his house it has to be shown to the satisfaction of the county court judge that it is reasonable so to do. But I do not think that we should part with the Amendment without placing on record our very keen disappointment that at the last minute of what I hope is the last hour of our debate on the Bill the Government should have taken it upon themselves to have yet one more thrust at the unfortunate tenant. Surely they have done enough already. Why cannot they leave him alone?
As I said earlier, if an unfortunate man has thought that he could carry out perhaps £150 or £200 worth of repairs, or perhaps has undertaken to do so in despair of the cost of getting somebody else to carry out repairs, and has then found that he is faced with having to pay a large rent and having to carry other burdens under a Conservative administration and therefore is unable to do so, surely, if there is to be a sanction against him, to turn him out of his house or to threaten him with being turned out is unnecessarily savage.
I am perfectly sincere in saying that when the Solicitor-General seeks to justify this step on the part of the Government by the arguments which he used he demonstrates even more clearly than hitherto he has demonstrated how completely ignorant he is of the circumstances of the sort of tenants with whom


the Bill deals. To say that it was the tenant's fault that the repairs were not carried out and that therefore he has no ground for complaint when he is thrown out of his house is to look at the matter from a wholly unreal standpoint. The repairs have accumulated over the years. The tenant is in the position—

The Solicitor-General: These are repairs which the tenant has voluntarily undertaken to execute, presumably quite recently.

Sir F. Soskice: I am perfectly aware that we are talking of repairs which may have accumulated over the years, which the notional landlord—and that is what he is—has never bothered about and which, at the end of the long lease, the notional landlord suddenly takes it into his head to use as a lever to get the tenant out. The tenant is then confronted with the alternative either of paying for the repairs, probably by instalments which he cannot afford, or undertaking to do the repairs by himself.
Perhaps we are all more optimistic than we ought to be. I am quite sure that on this side of the House we were more optimistic than we should have been when we first considered the terms of the Bill. When the tenant finds that his optimism has been a little misplaced and after all he cannot do the repairs, it appears little short of monstrous that the Government should go out of their way to use that as one of the grounds for dispossessing him. This Amendment is quite unnecessary. The Government could have left the Bill as it was or, if they wanted some sanction, they might have provided that the landlord did the repairs and charged the tenant up as if in the first instance he was entitled to do them and recover the cost by instalments from the tenant. I cannot understand the provision in this Amendment except as a new achievement on the part of the Conservative Government in thrusting at the unfortunate tenant.
The only thing which influences me in not advising my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment tonight is the fact that the tenant has the protection of a humane county court judge who will stand between him and the Conservative Government, aligned with the landlord. For that reason we can reluctantly let

the Amendment go, although it is a thoroughly bad Amendment and the Government ought to be ashamed of it.

Mr. Skeffington: I want to add my voice to that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). We must take grave exception to the fact that at the very last moment landlords are being given a new ground for possession. We strongly object to that, as we have objected to other new grounds for possession throughout the Bill.
I must remind the House that under the Bill we have it in black and white, as never before, that even where a tenant has failed only to pay an insurance premium, the landlord can claim possession. This is something which has never been the practice before. Where the tenant fails to pay his rates the matter is always—in the past—dealt with by getting a settlement through taking the tenant to court. Under the Bill, however, that is also made a specific ground for possession. This is entirely new. Now, at the last hour, we have still another ground upon which the landlord can claim possession of the tenant's dwelling.
A few moments ago we had an example of a tinsel gift to the tenant where the landlord is a local authority, although in that case all sorts of safeguards, including public opinion, are available if the local authority behaves unreasonably. Here, on the other hand, no protection at all is given to the tenant.
The Solicitor-General said that this was a necessary consequence of allowing the tenant to do the repairs. In my submission it is not a necessary consequence at all. All kinds of other remedies are available to the landlord. He could take the tenant to court for damages as the tenant had broken the agreement, or do the work himself and see that costs are granted to him in the county court, or in the high court if the sum were over the maximum with which the county court can deal. There is no reason why that procedure should not be followed, for it gives the landlord complete security Why should the tenant lose his home. The House will notice the difference in treatment. If we are dealing with a landlord who, sometimes for year after year, has failed to meet the elementary obligations to keep a house in a fit state under


the various Health Acts, all that happens is that the local authority does the repairs and the landlord then has to pay for them. There appears to be one standard of treatment for the landlord and an entirely different standard for the tenant. We protest strongly against that.
When this matter was considered in another place—and we are grateful for the concession whereby the tenant can undertake the repairs—nothing was said about this penalty being inserted. The Government said in another place that the arguments for allowing the tenant to do the repairs were substantial and that they would be considered, but no hint was given that this additional sanction would be put in the Bill. It is treating the House with less than fairness, just as it is treating the tenant with less than justice, that this penal provision should be inserted, and I hope that even at this stage either the Government will make some further announcement or my hon. Friends will consider what action they should take.

Mr. Hale: In another place, at the conclusion of the Report stage, when the whole discussion appeared to have been concluded, a noble Lord rose and moved this Amendment. He moved it on the nod without a single explanatory word. A question was asked by a noble Lord opposite as to whether there was any protection for the tenant and the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack said he thought there was. He said that the words "it shall be reasonable to make the order" applied—and on that the Clause passed through another place. It has now come before us for our deliberation. In the early hours of the morning very near the end of the Session—although we shall reassemble and continue our labours—it has been brought before us. We are being asked to consider the introduction of this new Clause —this penal Clause, and I shall explain why it is penal—drafted in as savage a way as possible. We have been told, quite casually, that subsection (3) had been dropped out, but I make so bold as to state that I doubt if three hon. Members out of the total of more than 600 now know what is the state of this Bill or what is the meaning of the Amendments so far as obligations are concerned.
The Clause is penal in my opinion because it refers with a complexity of that type in which Parliamentary draftsmen seem to delight, to "a failure to maintain" as a breach of an obligation. If it was stated that the failure to maintain should be regarded as a breach of the Clause, then it would have carried out the intention of the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General; because a breach of an obligation is a ground for making an order. But once an agreement is made and not carried out, one has established a breach legally, without having to assert and to prove that there is a breach within the exact judicial meaning of that word.
Then we come to the position where the Solicitor-General wholly fails to understand what really are the facts. He tells us that the tenant may voluntarily agree to do the repairs. The tenant, faced with an appalling burden, and wondering whether it would be better to try to "do the job on the cheap" or to let the landlord do it, signs an agreement. Does the Solicitor-General call that a "voluntary agreement"? What happens? We are all victims of circumstances; not one of us can say with absolute certainty what may happen to us in the next five minutes, and let us think for a moment of the man concerned with the place where bricks are being pulled out; where one starts doing repairs, and something comes down, or where old beams are discovered in such a state that they have to be removed and replaced. All of a score of different things may happen to put the cost entirely beyond the tenant's means.
But there is more. The man who decides that he can afford to repair his house may, the next day, be told by the doctor that somebody very near and very dear to him is stricken with a long illness; that man may have to re-arrange his plans, but is that man covered? The learned Solicitor-General says that all this is covered. In the 1933 Act there are the magical words, "if the court thinks it reasonable to make the order"; but these things have to be interpreted within the line of the decision.
The county court judge has not complete freedom in this matter; and here I would say that nobody has expressed more approval in this House than myself for the county courts as a whole. In the matter of judicial decisions in the industrial injuries field, they represent the finest


tribunal which we have and conducted by men who get to know a good deal more of the workaday lives of the ordinary people than is always credited to them. They are men who may know of the poverty which people endure, and what it means, and they may make allowances for that. But let us not get mealymouthed about this.
12.30 a.m.
Everybody knows, every practising solicitor knows, that we have on one hand the landlord's judge and, on the other, the tenant's judge. We are all creatures of bias. It may be true—it probably is—that most people on this side of the House have a bias in favour of the tenants. It is certainly true that most people on that side of the House have a bias in favour of the landlords. County court judges are not immune from this bias. I remember a county court judge, whom I greatly respected, a generous hearted man who usually gave a decent judgment in the end, would always exclaim." The tenant undertook the obligation in his contract and now he comes here seeking alleviation and the protection of the Rent Acts."
That is a point of view. That is what a county court judge will say. That is what the Solicitor-General said: "The tenant undertook the obligation. He freely signed the contract. Once having put his name freely to the contract, having entered into the contractual obligation, he must fulfil it. Never mind that he now says the builder was incompetent, or the bank has gone bust, or he has lost his money, or he is out of work, and he cannot carry out his obligation." That is the argument and point of view brought before us tonight.
After it has been said this was a Bill to protect tenants, to some extent based on a Report some of us put in some work on during a couple of years and with a good deal of energy, it is a bit tough to be told that somewhere or another some other report or recommendation was made—not on the Floor of the House—that requires that this provision should be brought in. As my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have said, there is no necessity for it. Nothing is easier than to say that if the tenant fails to carry out his obligation the landlord

shall be entitled to carry it out for him and charge him in the ordinary way.
I can well understand saying, "If the tenant fails to carry out his obligation because of fraud, or delays carrying it out deliberately even though he has the resources with which to carry it out, he should be held to account." If that were said for this provision I could understand the argument. But that is not being said. What is being said is that once the tenant has signed on the dotted line he must carry out his obligation.
The gravity of this provision, introduced at this late hour, at what we used to call on our leave tickets the hour of 23·59, is that the tenant will say, "I am not taking this obligation on. It is all very well, but knowing the eventualities of life I shall not undertake an obligation of this sort." More and more power will pass to the landlords. More and more it will be left in the hands of the landlords.
Quite seriously and quite firmly I make my own individual protest that, after spending a long time in discussing very important Lords Amendments to a very important Bill, we should have now to pass several pages of more Lords Amendments to this Bill with very little discussion and consideration. I speak with an earnest desire to assist the Government to get this Bill because on the whole, though we on this side do not strongly approve the Bill, we think it is better than nothing. I make my protest, however, that we should be confronted in these circumstances at this late hour with this sort of Lords Amendment, with little opportunity of discussing it, without adequate opportunity of considering the previous ones and of correlating them with this one.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I would like to add my words of protest to the attempted introduction by the Solicitor-General of what I regard as a monstrous provision and at the way it has been done at this late hour. I would echo nearly all of what my hon. Friend has just said.
We gave the very greatest attention to these provisions in the Committee stage, and not a word was said then by the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General to indicate they had in mind the introduction of penal provisions of this kind to make the position of the


tenant infinitely worse than it already is under this Bill. It was not even mentioned in the Committee stage in another place. It was not until the very last moment at the Report stage that this very serious and important provision was inserted in the other place without a word of explanation.
We have had a completely unsatisfactory attempt by the Solicitor-General to explain why he should think it necessary to put this provision in the Bill. We have had very few concessions from the Government about this Bill during its examination upstairs, and I would add my words of protest to those which have been uttered.
I put it to the Home Secretary, who is in charge of this Measure, and who has over and over again said that he wants to do the right and reasonable thing, that here is perhaps his last opportunity of meeting some of the representations that have been made to him from these benches in an attempt to hold the scales of justice fairly between the landlord and the tenant. But if, instead of doing that, he presses the Amendment, then we shall have the scales weighted even more heavily than they already are against the tenant.
This Clause proposes that if a tenant fails to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time, then he loses his rights, he loses his security and can forfeit his tenancy. We have not been told why that is necessary. Why should not the landlord be given equal protection by giving him the right to recover the money if he does the repairs himself? Why is it necessary to give the landlord the right to evict the tenant if he fails, and he may not be responsible in any way, to carry out the repairs?
Will the Home Secretary give his attention to the extraordinarily vague language which is adopted in this Clause? It says the failure which would produce the breach and would entitle the court to terminate the tenancy would arise if the tenant did not carry out his repairs "within a reasonable time." That is a very odd condition in a penal provision of this kind. What is a reasonable time? Who is to decide what is a reasonable time? One knows that in various walks of life and in consideration of different Acts of Parlia-

ment that different opinions may be held about what is a reasonable time. This provision has put the tenant completely at the mercy of the county court judge. He may take the view that he still has a reasonable time within which to carry out the initial repairs. Another person might take a different view.
One would have thought that before a penal provision of this kind is to operate, there should be some machinery whereby the landlord could say to the tenant: "I am giving you a reasonable time to carry out repairs and you must have them done within so many days or, so many weeks." Some such notice should be given, but there is nothing of the kind.
As I understand this Amendment, the landlord is to wait until what he thinks is a reasonable time has expired and then seek an order for the tenancy to come to an end where there may be a dispute about whether a reasonable time has expired. From then the provision would have to be determined by the county court judge, and may be determined against the tenant. It seems that this provision is most unsatisfactory and most unfair to the tenant, and it has obviously been hurriedly drafted. It is vague and shipshod, because it was put in at the very last moment by another place. There was no consideration by this House, no consideration in another place and, presumably, no proper consideration by the Government or anyone else. I do not think it fair for this House to be asked to accept an Amendment imposed by the Lords in these circumstances, and I do not think it is just. I invite the Home Secretary, as this is perhaps the last occasion he will have of making some concession to the legitimate claims of tenants, to tell the House he will not press this Amendment.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 20, leave out "by the landlord."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the 15th of a series of Amendments on initial repairs and applies to


paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule, which provides for the making of a record of the state of repair of a dwelling-house. It is directly consequential on earlier amendments in the series.

Sir F. Soskice: The Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary—I do not know which of them had the turn to reply—remained supine in his seat when we were all expecting an answer to the previous Amendment. As this Amendment deals with the same series of Amendments, perhaps the Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary has now recovered sufficiently to give us an answer. The arguments addressed on the previous Amendment were sincerely put in the hope that we should at least have some further explanation. I ask the Solicitor-General, if he is in charge of this Amendment, to take this opportunity of giving us now some sort of reply to the arguments addressed against this series of Amendments, and I hope he will do so.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I also feel that the House is entitled to a reply. I think the Home Secretary is lacking in courtesy to the House in failing to answer the subjects that have been addressed to him from this side.

Mr. Speaker: We are now going back on an Amendment already passed.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, the Solicitor-General, who spoke in respect of this Amendment, said it was one of a series of Amendments, and I do not want to go back on the previous Amendment. I will keep myself strictly in order in adducing the reasons why I would protest against the acceptance by the House of this Amendment.
12.45 a.m.
This Amendment is justified on the ground that it is connected with other Amendments which we have already passed. It may well be that we did not have a full and adequate discussion on those, but that is no reason why we should not have a full discussion on this Amendment. For the benefit of hon. Members who have only just joined our discussions, and I am sure are anxious to hear what this important subject is about, may I say that this Amendment seeks

to leave out from line 20 of page 56 the vital words "by the landlord." I would like those words to be retained, and I think that paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule will only make sense and be equitable if it is limited to initial repairs being carried out by the landlord.
I can well understand that the object of seeking to eliminate the words "by the landlord" would be to cover the case of initial repairs being carried out by the tenant. When a Bill of this importance to the community, and of this length and prolixity, comes before the House, it should be discussed properly. It is not our fault that we are discussing it after midnight, we have been very patient and have done everything we could to assist the Government in getting the Bill through. When, however, a series of matters comes before the House as a result of Amendments introduced in another place at the last moment and without discussion, we are entitled to an ever greater measure of courtesy from the Government Front Bench than we should receive normally, and to the fullest explanation of the need and justification for these Amendments.
I make these observations, because I want the Home Secretary to have an opportunity of doing himself justice on this Amendment, in view of his failure to do so on the previous ones, and to tell us why, if initial repairs are carried out by the tenant, that should produce the penal consequences with which we so strongly disagree.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Part of the trouble of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was that he had not arrived back in the Chamber when I dealt with the first of these Amendments, which was some time ago. I am always anxious to fill up the very few gaps in his wide range of knowledge, and I shall take this opportunity to do so. I would remind him that the general suggestion—as I explained to the House when he was not here—put forward by the Opposition in another place was that it should be left to the court to decide whether the landlord or the tenant should do the repairs. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has appreciated that this is the basic principle on which these 16 Amendments hang.
If he has that point in his mind, he will begin to see illumination breaking out because the suggestion which was made by the Opposition in another place —representing, as it did, not only members of the branch of the legal profession of which I have been a member in my time, but also the resourceful branch of the profession to which the hon. Gentleman belongs—

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing my hon. Friend in rather a condescending manner. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my hon. Friend knows the purport of the Amendments, because, to my knowledge, he has discussed them very closely. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that other hon. Members on this side were present and heard what the Home Secretary said earlier and that it is not necessary to repeat that part of the argument, which is past history.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for that contribution to the debate. I was endeavouring to answer a point on which the hon. Member had appealed to me. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not like that part of my answer, I will move to the next point and trust that it will appeal to him and produce a less forbidding rejoinder. Before I gave way I pointed out that the suggestion of the Opposition in another place was that this matter should be left to the court. The matter to be left to the court was the question of who would do the repairs. This was on the basis that the tenant would have the obligation, instead of doing the repairs due under the lease, of doing the lesser repairs, and then would transfer to himself, at his own request, the obligation to do the repairs. He goes to court and says that he wants to do the repairs.
What this provision suggests is that after he has done that there will be an obligation to carry out the repairs. The ordinary result of a breach of obligation of that kind must be some consequence which is not advantageous to the tenant. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is, "Look at the position of the tenant." I am not being

facetious about this; I appreciate that there are hard cases; but that is the logical argument which follows what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said.
Someone has suggested that the landlord could go to the county court for judgment for the amount of the repairs. On that hypothesis, that would simply put him in the same position. I therefore feel that when a tenant goes to the court and assumes an obligation, and is not able to fulfil his obligation, it is right, as the Solicitor-General has said, that he must be liable, always provided that the county court judge, looking at all the circumstances, thinks that it is reasonable to make an order. Consequently, I do not see why odium has been heaped on my right hon. and learned Friend, and I can add nothing to what he has said.

Mr. William Wells: I hesitate to go over the ground traversed before, but I do not quite follow the logic of the Home Secretary's answer. He appears to be saying that it is quite all right: the landlord is entitled to recover damages where there has been a breach of contract. We follow him there, but then he says that it is right in justice to inflict this penalty on the tenant that he may be turned out of his house if he does not comply with the order and does not pay the damages, or does not do the repairs. Then he says we need not worry about the position of the tenant because the county court judge will see he is not turned out.
It is difficult to see who is helped in those circumstances by this Amendment. Surely the position is quite clear without the Amendment. The landlord is in a position to recover damages. If the tenant is in a bad way financially the county court judge, as he is well accustomed and experienced to to, will fix a payment by instalments, and the tenant will be much more able to pay the landlord what is due to him when he has the certainty of a roof over his head than when this threat is suspended over him.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 56, line 24, leave out subparagraph (2).

Fifth Schedule.—(PROVISION FOR PURPOSES OF PART I WHERE IMMEDIATE LANDLORD IS NOT THE FREEHOLDER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 61 and insert:
(c) the court makes an order for the recovery by the superior landlord of possession of the property comprised in the tenancy, the tenant shall not be required to give up possession of that property unless he has been a party to the proceedings or has been given notice of the order; and the provisions of the next following sub-paragraph shall have effect where he has been such a party or has been given such a notice:
Provided that where the tenant has been a party to the proceedings the said provisions shall not apply unless he has at any time before the making of the order made application in the proceedings for relief under this paragraph.
(2) If the tenant within fourteen days after the making of the order, or where he has not been a party to the proceedings, within fourteen days after the said notice, gives notice in writing to the superior landlord that he desires that the following provisions of this sub-paragraph shall have effect and lodges a copy of the notice in the court—

(a) the tenant shall not be required to give up possession of the said property but the tenancy mentioned in head (b) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph shall be deemed as between the tenant and the superior landlord to have been surrendered on the date of the order; and
(b) if the term date of the tenant's tenancy would otherwise fall later, it shall be deemed for the purposes of Part I of this Act to fall at the expiration of seven months from the making of the order."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is one to paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule which provides relief for the occupying tenant under a Part I tenancy where a superior landlord enforces the right of forfeiture for breach of contract against the immediate landlord. The Amendment is designed to correct a defect in the procedure laid down in the paragraph. As it stands, the paragraph contemplates a tenant applying under the proceedings for relief, but as my right hon. and learned Friends and learned Friends will appreciate, in many cases the tenant will not be a party to the proceedings between the immediate landlord and the superior landlord, and it would add unnecessarily to the expense to require him to be made a party.
The effect of the Amendment is simply to enable the tenant to claim relief under the paragraph, whether he is a party to the proceedings or not. Where he is a party, the proceedings laid down by the paragraph remain effectively unchanged. Where he is not, the Amendment provides that he is to be given notice of the judgment and may obtain the appropriate relief if, within 14 days of receipt of the notice, he gives notice of a claim to relief to the superior landlord, and files a copy of the notice in the court. I do not think anyone can take any exception to this.

Mr. W. Wells: This Amendment appears to be a thoroughly good and useful Amendment which closes a gap for the benefit of the tenant. I am sure we all welcome it. There is only one question I would like to put. This is a somewhat complicated and elaborate Schedule and, looking at page 7 of the Amendment Paper, under 2 (a) there is a reference there to the tenancy mentioned under head (b). The best sense I can make of it is that head (b) refers to paragraph 9 (1) (b) of the Schedule and does not refer to a tenancy at all. This is purely drafting, but I find it exceedingly hard to follow.

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 25, leave out:
or tenant's initial repairs.

1.0 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the seventeenth and last of the series of Government Amendments on initial repairs. This is purely consequential on earlier Amendments, and particularly on that to page 8, line 40, which make the phrase "initial repairs" cover repairs carried out either by the landlord or the tenant.

Ninth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 42, leave out paragraph 2 and insert:
2.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the recovery from a tenant who retains possession of a dwelling-house by virtue of section six of this Act of any amount due under section six of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, in respect of work executed on the dwelling-house; but


where any such amount is recoverable by the landlord (as defined by subsection (1), and the proviso to subsection (4), of section twenty-one of this Act) it shall be recoverable in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph but in no other manner.
(2) The amount shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a payment for accrued tenant's repairs, and accordingly the question whether any and if so what amount is due as aforesaid shall be deemed to be included in the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act.
(3) Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 4 and paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply in relation to the amount as they apply in relation to expenses incurred by the landlord in ascertaining what initial repairs are required in consequence of failure by the tenant to fulfil his obligation under the former tenancy.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Members of the Standing Committee will recollect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) moved an Amendment to Clause 10 to ensure that the relief given by that Clause to the tenant who remains in the premises as a statutory tenant should not extend to any liability for failure to pay other outstanding charges besides rent and rates. He feared that without some Amendment Clause 10 might make it impossible for local authorities to recover various sums charged on the property like stree works and things of that nature. I undertook to look into the point, and I am satisfied that my right hon. and learned Friend's fears as to he effect of the Clause without Amendment are groundless.
In the course of examining the position this defect in the Ninth Schedule was discovered. It is rather a complicated matter, but I think the House will agree with this substantial Amendment when I make it clear why it is necessary to make it. The House will remember that under Section 5 of the temporary Act tenants were protected from eviction for failure to comply with covenants to repair by preventing the landlord from enforcing the covenants in the lease. By Section 6 the landlord was enabled to enter on the demised property and carry out essential repairs required in consequence of he tenant's default. The Section gave him a right to recover from the tenant the expenses incurred in doing so, but the enforcement of the right to

recover was suspended so long as the tenant remained in occupation.
By this Bill both Sections 5 and 6 of the temporary Act will be repealed when the Bill comes into operation with the result that, apart from any specific provision in the Bill, the landlord could then enforce the right of recovery acquired by him under the temporary Act. As part of the scheme for giving the tenant security of tenure, Clause 16 protects him from eviction for failure to comply with the repairing covenants in his lease. The protection also extends to actions for damages, including, by virtue of Clause 16 (5), actions for the recovery of expenditure incurred in consequence of a breach of covenant.
As the Bill stands, the protection of Clause 16 is excluded by paragraph 2 of the Ninth Schedule in relation to amounts recoverable under Section 8 of the temporary Act. On the other hand, in so far as the liability to pay such an amount may be a liability arising under the lease it is extinguished by virue of Clause 10 on the conversion of the former tenancy into a statutory tenancy.
It is a somewhat complicated position. The Bill as it stands may operate harshly on the tenant and it may also be unjust to the landlord. It may be harsh on the tenant because, while his long tenancy continues, the effect of Sections 5 and 6 of the temporary Act will be that liability for repairs executed under that Act can be enforced. It will be unjust to the landlord because when the lease has been converted into a statutory tenancy the right which he has to recover payment at some time in the future for repairs, which he is entitled to exercise under the temporary Act, may be extinguished. There is really no reason why the position of the tenant whose landlord has made use of powers conferred by Section 6 of the temporary Act should be so different from that of the tenant whose landlord has done nothing.
Clause 16 was inserted in the Bill because the security which Part I was to give a tenant after his tenancy has come to an end would be illusory if he could be evicted for failure to repair before the expiration of his term. This is true no less of a tenant whose landlord has acted under the temporary Act than it is of any other tenant. On the other hand, it is manifestly unjust that a landlord who


has carried out essential repairs on the faith of Section 6 of the temporary Act, which gave him the right to recover his expenses, should lose his right after the tenant has become a statutory tenant. That is the difficulty which has come to light. It was harsh to the tenant in certain cases and unfair to the landlord in others.
The Amendment, therefore, proposes to treat expenses incurred by the landlord in carrying out repairs due to the tenant's default before the tenancy comes to an end in the same way as expenses incurred by the landlord in respect of initial repairs after the machinery of Part I has been brought into play. It achieves this by treating the amount recoverable under the temporary Act as a payment for accrued tenant's repairs, and by excluding recovery by action before the tenancy comes to an end.
To do this it is necessary to ascertain the amount due under the temporary Act and determine the method of its payment before the beginning of the statutory tenancy. These matters will therefore have to be included in the "proposals for a statutory tenancy" which the landlord is required to include in his notice, served under Clause 4. The form prescribed for this purpose will ensure that the point is not overlooked by the landlord or his advisers.
Paragraph 2 (3) in its new version makes the necessary adjustment in the First Schedule in order to ensure that the landlord does not suffer a diminution in his right to recover the amount due to him under the temporary Act where his interest comes to an end or the payment for initial repairs is reduced owing to some of the repairs becoming unnecessary.
I apologise for this lengthy explanation at this early hour of the morning, but the position with which we sought to deal is somewhat complicated and might operate in some cases unfairly on the landlord and in some cases unfairly on the tenant. By proposing this solution we think that we have arrived at a fair compromise.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I think that the whole House will agree with me when I say that it was quite unnecessary for the Solicitor-General to apologise for his very full and adequate explanation of this

very complicated and important Amendment. It is by no means the least important of the Amendments made to the Bill in another place. We are very grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving us such a very full explanation of what this complicated provision is designed to secure.
I say that because those who have studied the Reports of proceedings in the House of Lords will not have overlooked the fact that when the Amendment was proposed in their Lordships' House the Government spokesman said that he did not propose to explain the Amendment because he did not think he could explain it correctly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is referring to debates in another place and we must beware of that.

Mr. Fletcher: I was quoting what was said by the Government spokesman in order to show that where that happens in the House in which the Amendment is introduced, it is not a matter of apology but a matter of necessity that the Government spokesman in this House should give a very full explanation of what is intended. Not only members of the legal profession, but still less members of the public, could not be expected to understand the significance of this change in the Ninth Schedule unless a complete and coherent explanation were given of what it is intended to achieve. We are nearing the end of the Bill and we have had occasion to criticise the Government in some respects. On this occation I am delighted to take this opportunity of thanking the Solicitor-General for his lucid explanation.
I found it a little difficult to pick up the precise significance of it as the right hon. and learned Gentleman went along, and as he expounded it two or three questions were raised in my mind. He said that the Bill without the Amendment would involve a certain measure of hardship, in some circumstances to the tenant and in some circumstances to the landlord. The Bill as unamended would have this curious result: the rights under Sections 5 and 6 of the temporary Measure, which were suspended, would not revive unless specific provision were made in the Ninth Schedule for their revival. The question is in what form should they be revived so that they


would involve hardship and injustice to neither the tenant nor the landlord?
Broadly, the effect of this long and complicated Amendment is to revive provisions under the temporary Act of 1951 which enabled a landlord to do repairs but took away from him the right to recover payment from the tenant. They are treated as being added to the repairs which, under this Bill, if the long lease comes to an end and the occupation becomes a tenancy, comprise one of the things for which he can claim.
I ask the Home Secretary to give us an assurance. A moment or two ago an Amendment was introduced giving the landlord the right to seek a termination of the tenancy if certain repairs were not done by the tenant—not merely to recover from the tenant but to bring the tenancy to an end. The House is entitled to an assurance from the Home Secretary that this provision affecting the Ninth Schedule, which gives the landlord the right to treat these payments as equivalent to expenditure on repairs, adds in no way to the risk of the termination of the tenancy if there should be default on the part of the tenant in making any payment due to be made. In other words, the principle for which we contend is that the grounds on which a tenancy should come to an end should be strictly limited, whatever the monetary rights about payments for repairs. We are anxious to make it clear beyond all doubt that there is nothing in this new and somewhat complicated section which adds to the grounds on which a tenant can be deprived of his tenancy.
The second point is this. The learned Solicitor-General referred to a "prescribed form" which is to be used under these new provisions, but it was not clear to me from what he said as to whether that prescribed form is to be prescribed as a result of this Bill passing into law. I did not understand that. If he means a form under the provisions of Clause 4, then I would ask for an assurance that, in the form of notice to be prescribed it shall be in such detail, and with such clarity, that it is made perfectly clear to any tenant affected by this most complicated section, exactly what are his rights in this intricate procedure.

1.15 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On the first point which the hon. Gentleman raised, I think that he will appreciate the difficulty which my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General described. As a result of the repeal of Sections 5 and 6 of the temporary Act the Bill as it stands becomes harsh to the landlord when a long tenancy is converted into a statutory tenancy.
But, on the second point of his first specific question to me, I would say that the landlord has no better remedy for this than for any other payment for the tenant's repairs. That is dealt with in paragraph 17 of the First Schedule. The non-payment of an amount for these repairs gives the county court judge the right to order possession. But this gives no more favourable position and confers no extra power. As to the form of notice, this is under Clause 4, and the Solicitor-General has stated, and I repeat it, that the form will be such as to ensure that the point mentioned is not overlooked. I think that that deals with the points raised and, on behalf of the Solicitor-General, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the compliment which he expressed.

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 32, at end insert:
(2) Where a tenant under a tenancy which was current at the commencement of this Act would but for this sub-paragraph be entitled both to—

(a) compensation under section thirty-seven or section fifty-eight of this Act; and
(b) compensation payable, under the provisions creating the tenancy, on the termination of the tenancy,
he shall be entitled, at his option, to the one or the other, but not to both.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
One of the objects of the Bill is to provide compensation for tenants under certain circumstances when they do not get a renewal of their tenancies. In certain leases there are provisions for compensation, particularly leases granted by statutory undertakers for a term of years with power for the landlord to terminate it at any time on, say, six months notice if the premises are required for the purposes of the undertaking.
It may be that the amount of the compensation under the lease is greater than the amount he could obtain under the Bill; it may be the other way on. The purpose of the Lords Amendment is to secure that while the tenant should not be entitled to compensation twice over, under both the Bill and under the lease, he should have the choice of electing which compensation he will take, the one under the Bill or the one under the lease. Presumably, when he has that exercise of election, he will take the compensation which is greater.

Mr. Skeffington: I raised this point once or twice in Committee, and I am grateful that the matter has been dealt with, and that it has been made perfectly clear that double compensation will not be possible. I think that this is a very desirable Lords Amendment.

BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 5.—(NOTICES, APPLICATSONS, RECORDS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 15, leave out "paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (4)."

1.21 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. It arises from the Amendment to Clause 2 on Report to this House, by which the Minister's powers of exemption were transferred to a new subsection (4). In those circumstances, the reference in this Clause ought to have been amended, but by an oversight it was not, and this Lords Amendment repairs the omission.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [16th July] on Consideration of Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which Amendment was: In page 1, line 9, to leave out "also", and insert "nevertheless," instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That 'also' stand part of the Bill."

1.22 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): This is a drafting Amendment that was inserted as a result of a promise made during Committee after a certain amount of discussion in which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) was particularly interested. I do not want to detain the House upon it, but I think it is right to say, as he is here and may have something to say about it, that this Amendment was designed to make it clear that the definition in Clause 1 (1) of the imperfect trust provision includes a trust instrument which could be so construed that a trust property could be used exclusively for non-charitable purposes.
During Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested it was not clear whether this definition included an instrument of this kind, and I undertook to consider it again before Report. Subject to the provisions of Clauses 2, 3 and 4, the Bill validates a trust whose property can consistently with terms of the trust instrument be used exclusively for charitable purposes, notwithstanding that it can be used wholly or partly—it does not matter which—for non-charitable purposes. The existence of the non-charitable purposes in the trust instrument means that the trust is not, under the existing law, a valid charitable trust; the effect of the Bill is to delete the non-charitable purposes from the instrument. It was felt that the Clause as drafted might be regarded as ambiguous, because it might be said that it would exclude from the Bill one of the best known cases. This amendment has removed that possibility.

Mr. George Wigg: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation.
But I should like to ask him why he did not save a great deal of unpleasantness between himself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) by giving the same explanation when this came before the House on 16th July.
Surely, the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it worthwhile to give at this late hour this very full and courteous explanation is proof positive that he was singularly lacking in courtesy on 16th July. We have a considerable affection and admiration for him, and I hope very much indeed that he will profit by this experience and learn that the House of Commons, however pressing the case may be and however short the time, must not be treated as he tried to treat it on 16th July. I think this has been a lesson that was well worth while.

The Attorney-General: If I might, by leave of the House, say one word again—the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), with customary and perfect courtesy, has made some very kind and, possibly, relevant remarks, and I am sorry the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch was unable to be here this evening. He has not told us why. I am a little surprised at the hon. Member for Dudley suggesting that I was guilty of some discourtesy to his hon. and learned Friend and complaining that all I had to say was that the Amendment was a drafting Amendment. That is not usually regarded as a discourteous observation. I think there must be some misunderstanding. What I did say on the last occasion, although it appears to have escaped the eagle eye of the reporter—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman at this stage to cast doubt on the authenticity of the OFFICIAL REPORT? I have never heard of that being done before.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it is out of order to say that the OFFICIAL REPORT has been misled. We are guided by the Journal and the Votes and Proceedings.

Mr. Fletcher: Further to that point of order. Surely if any hon. Member, and in particular any member of the Government, wishes to challenge the accuracy

of something which appears in HANSARD, commonly known as the OFFICIAL REPORT, it is open to any hon. Member to take the earliest opportunity of doing so. Surely, it is very unusual, after something like a fortnight has elapsed, for a Minister then to complain of the inaccuracy of something which not only appeared in the daily HANSARD, but also in the weekly HANSARD. Surely, the whole basis of our debates is these reports, which are taken down verbatim, with an accuracy which commands the admiration of the whole House and the whole country. Surely is is a great disservice to this admirable team of reporters to cast doubt on their accuracy in a matter of this kind after such a lengthy interval. I have often been present in the House, when some slip has been corrected the next day, or the following day. But I have never in my experience known after a lengthy interval like this on a matter of great importance, when the courtesy of an hon. Member is challenged, doubts to be cast on the accuracy of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I would respectfully submit that there is a matter of principle involved here. It would be very unfortunate if it were regarded as a precedent, that doubt could be cast on the accuracy of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Attorney-General: I certainly cast no doubt whatever on the accuracy of
the OFFICIAL REPORT. What I said was that it may be, and possibly was, that the reporter did not catch what I thought I said on that occasion. What I certainly believe I did say, though I might have been inaudible, as I sometimes am, was that the Amendment was inserted as a result of a promise made in Committee. That was the effect. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, who had not given us the benefit of his assistance in the Committee, was present on that occasion, and he rose and accused me of gross discourtesy in not giving detailed information.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is not here. I think I should reply to the Attorney-General's remark that he had not given services on the Committee. He was not a member of the Committee, so how, therefore, could he give his services.


Twenty to 30 members of the Committee were absent during the discussion. He was not a member of the Committee, and that should not be said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether he was a member or not does not arise. We are discussing an Amendment, and there was a question of courtesy on one side. I thought we were dealing with that.

Mr. Hale: I raised the point of order perfectly seriously. The Attorney- General has remarked that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch had not given his services on the Committee. Surely that means clearly to anyone who reads it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or hears it, that my hon. and learned Friend did not perform his duties by attending the Committee. But he was not a member of the Committee. He could not serve on it because he had no right to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was a Standing Committee.

Mr. Hale: I want to say that I am glad that the Attorney-General has made the explanation that he did. I hope the House will recollect that the brief remarks he made, whether correctly heard or not, were made about 3.59 p.m., when we on this side had withdrawn our opposition, or our comment on another Bill, to enable it to be passed. We were a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to want to take this complicated Measure through almost on the nod. He said that the Amendment was made in pursuance of a promise given in Committee. With great respect, what was said in Committee was this: my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said the word "also" was an unfortunate word and should be altered. There was no suggestion that "nevertheless" was the right word, nor, indeed, was this mentioned in Committee at all. He said, "I will consider the point, and we will see what can be done."
We still come to the point as to whether "nevertheless" is the right word. This is a serious and an important point. Most of us who have had any dealing with the business of charitable trusts know it is a nightmare. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Leicester, North-East may find it simple, because he is a

specialist in these matters, but for those of us who deal with the ordinary work of the drawing up of charitable trusts and wills are continually trying to meet that inevitable difficulty that arises, because every person acquiring or settling property of charitable trusts always wants them to be as wide as possible, and every legal officer has to advise him that they must be as narrow as possible because the interpretation of trusts has always been extremely narrow.
The very case that gave rise to the whole of this Act is in many ways founded on the Diplock case in 1940, which said that the words "charitable" or "benevolent" made the whole trust void from the charitable point of view. I have always thought these interpretations were too narrow. We have always had to face a quite fantastic dilemma, and it would be convenient if I put one dilemma here and now, because I do not want to speak twice and I do not want to delay the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the case of Ellis, which has been referred to constantly in the Nathan Report, the Catholic church case. The normal trust for the Catholic church is to limit a building for the purposes for which it was built, and then have a general clause that it should be subject to such tests as the Bishop or appropriate authorities lay down. The dilemma is this, and it is worth considering, that if that is not done, no money can be borrowed on the building because, unless there is an ultimate reversion for ordinary uses, no bank will lend money. They will say that the building is strictly limited for use as a Catholic school, that it is of no use to them, that they cannot use it, that they could not sell it, that there is no security, that it is worthless. On the other hand, if they allow such wide trusts as give a resulting power for a mortgagee in opposition to sell the premises and development, the whole thing is void under the charitable trust; that is why we welcome the Bill.
I think my point arises on the word "nevertheless," but I am anxious that at this time of the morning we should raise one point and not try to do it piece-meal by coming back to it on Third Reading. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the Oxford Group case, which was the Income Tax case,


he will remember there that so far as it refers to a limited company, they have the remedy in their own hands. They amend their objects clause and they have opportunities of varying a trust which are not available to the ordinary trust provisions.
If we go to the other extreme and widen this Clause completely, it seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to consider the extent to which he is making possible widespread tax avoidance in these matters. Because, as I understand the Clause whether the word "also" is in or is substituted by the word "nevertheless," the careful draftsman will be able to look at it now on the basis of the Clause as at present drawn, and trusts which provide ostensibly for charity nevertheless give power to operate the funds for non-charitable purposes and for benevolent purposes. I should have thought that, unless we are careful, at 1·40 in the morning and without much consideration we are running the risk of giving the draftsman the chance of driving a coach and horses through some of the taxation laws which refer to bogus charities.
In other words, whether we use "nevertheless" or "also" draft charitable trusts under the provisions of this Clause, which have only to pay lip service to the theory of charity, which by then giving the alternatives would be able to establish, whether as a limited company or as an institution, opportunities of making profits and of exemption from taxation laws which have not been discussed. That is a serious point for the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and that is all I have to say.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: This is the Clause which has created a great deal of difficulty both on policy and on drafting. The Government have been in doubt that the Ellis type of case is within Clause 1 of this Bill. The difficulty has arisen over the Diplock type case, to which my hon. Friend referred; in other words the case where the gift is for a charitable or benevolent purpose, where the whole of the property can be used exclusively for a non-charitable object.
Personally I would prefer to see the Diplock type of case excluded. There

are differences of view, and that is my personal view. My reason is that it is not only since the Diplock case that it has been known that a charitable or benevolent gift is a bad gift in law to charity. That has been known for many years, and is well established, so that there is no reason for the legislature to intervene in that type of case. By covering that type of case in this Clause we are making retrospective legislation altering the law, although that law has been perfectly well known and established. It is a classical instance of retrospective legislation which, I warn the Government, will not be forgotten.
It is unnecessary, it is contrary to the principles of law, and it makes for uncertainty in the law. Regarding drafting, I took the view on Second Reading, and in Committee, that the Diplock type of case was not covered by the Bill as it was drafted. There seemed to be doubt about it, and I pressed that the matter should be cleared up. I understood from the Attorney-General during the Committee stage that, although there was misapprehension about it, he agreed with my view of the interpretation of the Clause, and that it was the intention of the Government that the Diplock type of case should not be covered by the Clause. Apparently there was some confusion, and it now transpires that it is the intention of the Government that the Diplock type of case shall be covered.
Therefore we have an amendment of the drafting not, as I had hoped, to make clear that this type of case is excluded, but to make clearer that the Diplock type of case is covered. I am opposed to the Government on policy in this matter, but I welcome the alteration of the drafting, taking the view that it is better to have a defect of drafting cleared up rather than have litigation through it. To that extent I favour the Amendment, although, like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) I doubt whether the Amendment makes the matter as clear as it could be made. I would like to see it made clearer.
As I understand it, this Clause covers cases where there is a gift to a benevolent purpose. It goes further than the Diplock type of case. No one has suggested, as far as I know, that a gift to a benevolent purpose should ever be considered as a charity. In other words, the Clause is far


wider in scope than was ever contemplated, it seems to me, in the Report of the Nathan Committee. I wish the Government would change their view about the matter. Even so, I consider it desirable to have this Amendment. It makes the Government's intention clear, and will avoid the litigation which I am sure would otherwise ensue.

1.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General: With regard to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I think that his point is really met by the fact that Clause 1 (2) makes it clear that the validation which is brought into effect by the Bill only applies to instruments taking effect before 16th December, 1952. As to his idea that the draftsmen with evil intent have allowed scope for tax evasion, I wonder whether he has not missed something because this deals with the past. As his hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the Section is retrospective, and I think that meets the hon. Member's point.
As regards the hon. and learned Gentleman, he is really differing very largely from us on a question of policy which goes back a long way. The Lord Chancellor did deal with this matter and was quite clear about it from the very beginning. It was his desire to validate the Diplock type of case. That may be a matter for dispute—and of course I may be out of order in discussing it at any length on this Amendment, because all we are trying to do is to put it beyond doubt that we are covering the Diplock type of case. We are now clear that, however desirable or undesirable this may be, we have succeeded in doing that. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been most helpful and courteous about this matter—as he always is over legal matters—will agree that although there may be a matter of principle between us, we are agreed upon that.

Mr. Hale: The first paragraph of Clause 1 to which I was referring refers to "imperfect trust provision," and that is the definition in every Clause. It goes on to cover instances before the Nathan Report and applies the same definition to all sizes of instruments made since, so my observations in connection with the suggestions of tax evasion are certainly valid.

The Attorney-General: I am not concerned here with tax evasions, but if it turns out there is any difficulty, I have no doubt it will be dealt with as any other matters of tax evasion.

Question put, and negatived.

"Nevertheless" there inserted in the Bill.

[Queen's Consent signified.] Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (GIFT OF MACE)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory, Mr. F. M. Bennett, Mr. Braine, Mr. Chetwynd, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. Edward Heath, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Walker-Smith and Mrs. Eirene White to present the Mace to the Federal Assembly of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on behalf of this House.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

1.50 a.m.

Mr. William Whiteley: I beg to move,
That there he appropriated from the sums deducted from the salaries of Members of Parliament under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, one-tenth of these deductions in the current year for the purposes of administering the provisions of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1948, Section 4.
This Motion has to be confirmed by the House, because it is a separate fund under the 1948 Act and the trustees before that time had not the power to deal with cases of great difficulty. The Act was passed in order that 10 per cent. of the contributions of Members should be set aside for the trustees to deal with these hardship cases. We have now got to the stage when the Public Trustee has informed us that the funds available will only last to 31st October of this year. So it is essential for the trustees to come to the House and ask for further funds to continue the help we give to existing cases and to deal with the new cases which come before us from time to time.
This 10 per cent. will give us about £700 in a year, and that will last for the next 12 months. The present claims


upon the fund amount to £630, and we do not say that that is a conclusive figure. Therefore, we are asking for the fund to be replenished in order that we can continue the present grants and provide for any new ones that will arise.

SCHOOL MEALS (FOOD POISONING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

1.52 a.m.

Mr Arthur Moyle: We are here dealing with a vast service which is responsible for providing no fewer than 500 million meals per year to our school population. While I have some observations to make upon the adverse effect of the outbreak of food poisoning on the service, I want to enter a qualification in so doing that the service has much to commend it.
These outbreaks recently have been much too frequent for complacency. First of all, let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary that on the question of hygiene the Minister did an excellent job when she issued that circular to local education authorities which is commonly called circular 272. There the advice set out for the purpose of maintaining a high standard of hygiene was admirably done. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that advice was most comprehensive, and not only covered hygiene in connection with the equipment used for preparing, cooking and serving the food, but also included a very essential section on the importance of maintaining a standard of personal hygiene by those who are responsible for handling the food.
I am perfectly certain that, while the Minister has encouraged in every possible way what might be called education in hygiene, in which the local medical officers of health and their staffs have done an exceedingly good job aided by the lectures arranged by St. John Ambulance Service, it is my contention, whether the Minister realises it or not, that the Minister's action is a contributory factor to the outbreak of food poisoning in the school meals service.
The circular advises local authorities that food should be preserved, cooked

and served on the same day. That is particularly important in connection with meat dishes, because when they are warmed up and served some time after they have been prepared, they are considered among the most potent factors in the outbreak of food poisoning. The Minister also emphasises the importance of seeing to it that all utensils that are used are thoroughly cleansed, that the walls and working surfaces in the kitchens and the fittings are properly cleaned and that high standards of personal hygiene are maintained.
These measures to maintain a high standard of hygiene involve labour time. In other words, unless provision is made for staff to do these things, it becomes physically impossible to maintain efficiently the standard of hygiene that is set out in the Minister's circular. Recently the Minister has come down on the local authorities and has imposed additional economies in staffing arrangements. I refer particularly to the Manchester Corporation school meals service where, as a result of pressure from the Minister, economies have been effected in labour supplies, particularly in the kitchens.
Not only in Manchester but also in Birmingham and elsewhere, the education authorities are chafing under this constant imposition of staffing economies which not only militates against the necessary standard in hygiene but expresses itself in increasing use of tinned foods. Even tinned vegetables, such as carrots and peas, are used. I was made aware for the first time that a potato powder, which the children call "Pom," a kind of dehydrated potato, is used as a substitute for fresh potatoes.
While tinned food may be an economy and may be labour-saving, when fresh vegetables are in season and are readily available at reasonable prices it is wrong that they should be replaced by tinned food merely to ensure that the cost per meal, as laid down by the Minister, is observed by the local authority. These two by-products, as it were, arise directly from the Minister's policy of economy in staffing arrangements—first, it is made increasingly difficult for the staff to maintain the general standard of hygiene laid down by the Minister in circular 272 and, secondly, there is an increasing use of


tinned food in substitution for fresh vegetables.
In a large number of cases food is being prepared and cooked on one day and served the next day, totally against the Minister's instructions. The explanation is that the staff are unable to cope with the service unless that is done. I spoke to some girls from a grammar school about this service and they told me that whenever they smelled steak and kidney pie being cooked on a Tuesday, they knew that they would get steak and kidney pie on a Friday. I do not say that this is general. I know of some excellent school meals services where food is prepared, cooked and served on the same day.
I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the recent annual conference of the local education committees, held at the end of June. The conference unanimously passed a resolution asking the Minister to review the unit cost per meal of the school meal service which she has laid down; if it is exceeded, the local authority has to pay the additional cost on the rates for it is not accepted by the Minister. That resolution was debated and carried unanimously. Alderman Mrs. Smith, who seconded the resolution —representing the Birmingham City Council—said, in winding up her speech, that the Minister thought that the school meals service was overstaffed. The Minister wanted circular 272, emphasising the cleanliness of working surfaces, fittings, walls and so on, adhered to; but yet at the same time he exerted constant pressure for saving and scraping. That was her comment.
In a recent Adjournment debate I raised the question of the school meals service and asked the Minister to bring the trade unions into consultation. I repeat that request to him now. His right hon. Friend is advised by her own advisers, who have some experience of the school meals service, but she would be wise also to have other advice—that of the representatives of those who are employed in the service, people who are doing an excellent job, sensible people, full of zeal. I ask the Minister once again to bring the trade unions, both locally and at the centre, into consultation with her Department. Let the Minister hear what they have to say about the staffing arrangements for which she is

responsible in the conduct of this service. The right hon. Lady will do a good thing if she accepts this advice, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey it to her.
I do not ask for a reply tonight on the representations I am making, particularly in regard to the need for consultation with the trades unions, but I ask that I should be given an answer later. This service is vital to the school population. We want to make it an efficient and a popular service, and that can be achieved if the Minister does not, by a policy of parsimony, kill the essential qualities of the service.

2.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) for saying that he does not expect a reply tonight on the point that he has made about the trade unions, although I will try, if there is time, to give him some sort of reply. But I was not warned of that point, which is plainly one of great concern. It is also the case that I have not been warned of the points raised about the annual conference, or the unit costs, and I must ask to be forgiven if I do not say anything specific about those. For the rest, I think that I can answer all of it if I go straight and try not to wander into dealing with the exact expressions of the hon. Gentleman; which is the form I would prefer if there were more time. I would say that I, too, believe in the zeal and sense of vocation of those who prepare meals in this service, and I should even more readily support him if he was more willing to believe in the sense of zeal and vocation of Ministers.
When the hon. Member last spoke in this House about the school meals service, he was concerned with the decline in the number of children taking school dinners, and I think that I should begin with a word about that. The decline in the number of children taking school dinners was from 51·3 per cent. in October, 1952, to 45·1 per cent, in October, 1953; a drop of 6·2 per cent. In Worcestershire during the same period there had been a drop of 6 per cent., and in Oldbury a drop of 12 per cent. I promised on that occasion to let him have


later figures when they were available because they interested him, but they show that one cannot make any particular argument from them because there is a figure of so much in England and Wales, and a different figure in, say, Worcestershire or Oldbury.
I can now tell the hon. Member that on a day in June, 1954, the percentage of children taking school dinners was, over England and Wales as a whole, slightly higher than in June, 1953–43·5 per cent. as against 43·1 per cent. In Worcestershire the figure in June, 1954, was 1·6 per cent. higher than for the previous June–50·6 per cent. compared with 49 per cent.—and in Oldbury there was in the same period a rise of 1·2 per cent.; that is, 32·3 per cent. compared with 31·1 per cent. One must not lay too much stress upon these figures, but there is evidence from them that the drop in numbers which followed the last raising of prices, as it followed the risings in January, 1950, and in April, 1951, may be at least partly temporary.
The second reason why I mention these figures is that there must be some proportion between the numbers of children taking the meals and the number of people employed in preparing them and clearing up after them. If a decline in the number of children were not accompanied by some reduction in staffing, clearly there would be a disproportionate increase in overhead costs.
I think if this were the time to be controversial I might not unreasonably resent the hon. Gentleman's expression about the Minister's actions having been a contributory cause of what he called an "outbreak." "Outbreak" sounds a very serious word; it sounds as if there had been a great number in a very short period of very serious cases. I hope to show that that is not true. Nor is there any evidence that I know of—if there is evidence I should pay the greatest attention to it and see it was brought at once before my right hon. Friend and the officials concerned—that, in so far as there have been cases of this sort, they have been in any way the consequence of any Ministerial pressure for a reduction in staff.
Of course, it is my right hon. Friend's duty to do what she can to ensure that

expenditure on the school meals service is reasonable, since she pays 100 per cent. of the cost out of the pockets of the general population. To assist her in assessing what is reasonable she has the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectors in the form of a set of suggestions which are considered as a sort of broad guide on reasonable staffing proportions, and that guide is available to any authority that may be willing to use it. It serves as a basis for discussion when there are discussions with authorities, but it in no sense lays down an obligatory scale, and I am sure no local authority ever has thought it did lay down an obligatory scale.
Some authorities have scales of their own; some get along by trial and error without any systematic scales at all. The responsibility for the efficient running of the school meals service is a matter for the local education authorities themselves primarily, and it is for them to determine the detailed staffing arrangements. Local conditions vary very much indeed as between country and town, with central or scattered kitchens, a few large centres or many small ones, and so on.
When my right hon. Friend is assessing what seems reasonable expenditure for grant purposes she makes every endeavour to take full account of local conditions as well as of all the technical advice from Her Majesty's Inspectors, and it would not be proper for her to interfere with the detailed staffing arrangements by seeking to impose a particular staffing scale for a particular area, nor has she ever done so.
About consultation with trade unions, the hon. Gentleman kindly indicated that he did not expect an authoritative answer followed by immediate action tonight, and I think that was fair of him; but as he said so much about it I ought to say a word or two, and I think the most important word to say is that no Minister of Education—this is not a new thought —has thought it appropriate for the Ministry to take this step. The L.E.A.s are the employers; it is for the L.E.A.s to decide with the unions. No previous Minister has thought himself the proper person to deal with employees' suggestions or employees' organisations. But of course, the suggestion put by the hon. Gentleman will be most carefully put before my right hon. Friend. 

There is no reason at all to suppose, and I have made the best inquiry I can, that there is any under-staffing of the service in Worcestershire, or that local authorities, generally, are restricting their numbers in such a way as to run the possible risk of unhygienic practices. I am aware of the cases of food poisoning in the hon. Member's constituency last November. They were carefully investigated, and I feel confident the authority are taking all reasonable precautions to prevent any recurrence. The school medical officer said that the kitchen in which the food was prepared was well managed, the workers clean and orderly and conversant with the proper practices in the matter of their duties.
The advice given to my right hon. Friend by Her Majesty's Inspectors on staffing allows for the necessary standards of hygiene in the school meal service. The hon. Gentleman seemed almost to make it a matter of complaint that there was a paragraph or more in Circular 272 which was, as he said, essential to personal hygiene. It is essential, not in the sense that there was no personal hygiene before, but, plainly, personal hygiene is as important as cleaning of utensils and premises, and to mention one without mentioning the other would have been to invite criticism. What the circular has done is to make doubly sure. Many local education authorities are now reviewing, or have recently reviewed, their arrangements and are taking—I will not say an increased—an awakened interest in the question of hygiene and, in addition, my right hon. Friend has asked her medical officers to pay particular attention to it.
I will come to the question of the hon. Member's speech, which was on the assumption—any listener would have taken it for granted—that there had been more cases of poisoning in the recent past. That simply is not true; there is no evidence of it at all. The number of outbreaks of food poisoning in the school meals service has fallen steadily from 68 in 1949, to 45 in 1951 and 32 in 1953, and up to 14th July this year, 13. This suggests that things are rapidly going the right way. I hesitate to say so, (a) because I might be accused of complacency and (b) because I am reminded of unberufen the German superstitution,

that, when you say things are going well, they will go wrong. But, all the evidence is that it is going the right way.
In Worcestershire there were two cases—I do not mean individual cases—two small epidemics—perhaps even that is not the correct word—in 1952, two in 1953, and, touching wood, none at all this year. And let us remember that cases of food poisoning that arise elsewhere are not always reported; cases of food poisoning that arise in schools and canteens, are, as a matter of course, reported to the medical officer of health.
About tinned vegetables, my right hon. Friend has never advised the use of tinned vegetables in substitution for fresh vegetables as an economy measure. Rather, they have been discouraged from using tinned vegetables, although it is understood in some districts, at some seasons of the year, there may be proper use of vegetables so prepared; but it has never been advised as an economy measure and it is of course for the local education authorities to provide a properly balanced dinner. I am quite sure there is no local education authority not aware that fresh vegetables are a necessary ingredient in such a preparation.
Secondly, when Her Majesty's Inspectors have given advice on staffing scales they have always borne in mind the necessity to make allowance for people to cook and prepare fresh vegetables, and certainly have not suggested that the number of persons engaged should be cut down by saving time using tin openers instead of potato peelers. That has never happened.
My right hon. Friend is very fully conscious of the value of the school meals service, highly appreciative of those who work in it, fully agrees that it ought not to lose any of its essential virtues by reason of economy, does not consider that anything she has done is likely to have that effect, or tend to that effect, and will certainly always examine with the greatest care the amounts of money allowed for this purpose, in order to avoid any such risk.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes past Two o'Clock a.m.